Changing The Economic Direction | local marketing center|Paul and Sarah Edwards |Working From Home |

Health and Well-Being for the Self-Employed and Small Business

January 25, 2017 by Paul and Sarah Edwards 2 Comments

Most people’s health is on the line. Each day’s news brings headlines dimming hope for the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Social Security. People have begun asking themselves, “What will we do about Grandma?” How will I get my medications and will I be able to pay for them? A recent article was headlined, “160 million Americans can’t afford to treat a broken arm.” When former Vice-President Biden’s son was dying of brain cancer, the Vice-President and his wife nearly had to sell their home to pay their son’s medical bills. Better than one out of every two Americans (55%) worry they will not get the health care they need.

Most people in the middle class find themselves running ever faster just to stay in the same place economically. Not only are people fearful of what they may lose, millions now are without the ability to get medical care they need.

What has taken a half century to accomplish could be wiped out despite the fact that more than 1 out of 2 Americans – 58% -want the Affordable Care Act be replaced with Medicare for All. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans say they have a positive reaction to the term “Medicare-for-all.” People are realizing having health insurance is like requiring auto insurance to drive. Healthy people can work, have fewer problems that consume tax dollars, and public health is protected. Being On the other hand, recent polls indicate people are now no longer in favor of repealing ACA. in the same polls indicate just over half favor repealing Obamacare.

Medicare is popular with 77% of Americans saying it is “Very important,” just below social security at 83%. 57 million Americans – 1 in every 6 people – depend on Medicare.

The total administrative structure for administering and delivering this is in place and billions of dollars would be saved, This is because Medicare’s overhead is 3%; HMO’s and private insurers’ overhead ranges from 15-30%. Families can expect to see the cost of health coverage decrease by one-half or more.

ACA reduced the number of people who were uninsured by an estimated 20 million people from 2010 to 2016. The funds will no longer available to help pay their premiums and deductibles. With many fewer people buying coverage, many insurers will stop offering policies, and the remaining customers are likely to be sicker than current Obamacare buyers, a reality that will drive up the cost of insurance for everyone who buys it, and force more people out of the markets. The Urban Institute estimat es that the change would cause a total of 22.5 million people to lose their health insurance.

At stake are popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act like enabling young adults to stay on the family plan until age 26, closing the drug cost loophole, assuring coverage for people with preexisting conditions, which alone represents 52 million Americans, and providing health coverage for children on Medicaid and CHIP, Republicans are discounting the fact they will be alienating many of the people they look to for support.

Now is the time to advance “Medicare for All” as the best solution for developing popular support to arrest the Republican momentum seeking repeals and rollbacks in ACA and then go on to damaging Medicare and Social Security. Even voters who supported Trump nearly 13 to 1, view Social Security as something they earned.

Your Pocketbook

Millions of voters have received benefits from ACA but discounted this when they voted and still discount what its loss will mean for them will be angry and arguably motivated to act in their self-interest. You are apt to find you can only buy sub-standard policies with little or no consumer protection and are paying more out of pocket. The cost of individual policies purchased through the exchanges would rise 20-25% in the first year, and 18 million people would lose their health insurance. However, taxpayers whose average incomes were $318 million/year in 2014 would get their taxes cut $7 million a year. Two taxes support the popular provisions of ACA – taxes on persons with incomes above $200,000 year. Eliminating them would give the 400 richest Americans a tax cut worth around $7 million each.

The Economy

Reducing federal spending on health care takes so much money will be taken out of the consumer economy, nearly three millions of jobs will be lost. Nurses, health technicians, and other medical personnel will be out of work. Then there will be ripple effect – people with less money to spend on food, clothing, real estate, retrial trade, finance, insurance, travel, dentistry, and then less construction, and on and on. States will have less income to tax and less in sales taxes. This alone could trigger a recession, reducing the economy by 1.5 trillion dollars, according to the Center for Health Policy Research at the Milken Institute.

The U.S. national debt is sitting at 19.944 trillion dollars. During the past eight years, a staggering 9.3 trillion dollars was added to the national debt. It’s been estimated that the total savings by passing Medicare for All could slow the growth of national debt by 80%. This is important because “foreigners are dumping U.S. debt at a faster rate than we have ever seen before, and U.S. Treasury yields have been rising. This is potentially a massive problem, because our entire debt-fueled standard of living is dependent on foreigners lending us gigantic mountains of money at ultra-low interest rates. If the average rate of interest on U.S. government debt just got back to 5 percent, which would still be below the long-term average, we would be paying out about a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the national debt. If foreigners keep dumping our debt and if Treasury yields keep climbing, a major financial implosion of historic proportions is absolutely guaranteed within the next four years.” Source: Monetary Watch, January 23, 2017.

What you can do

First, stay informed about the changes that will be affecting you and your family. Second, let your Congressman and Senators know how you will be affected. The best way to do this is by phone, not letters, social media, or their websites. Phone messages get attention. Third, mobilize with the people in your community being willing to demonstrate your views. Fourth, share this message and your own with friends around the nation.

Congressman Representative John Conyers Jr. introduced his Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, into the current session of Congress. It is co-sponsored by 51 other congressmen, but more are needed, so asking your Congressman to co-sponsor will be most helpful.You can find contact information for your congressperson here or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. When calling, ask to speak with your representative’s Health Legislative Assistant. This link will give you more information.

A Pennsylvania business man, Richard Masters, has produced a movie that is worth watching and he is forming a national organization to put forward Medicare for All. This link will take you to the movie, which is worth watching and sharing with others.

How Protecting Freelancers Could Boost The U.S. Economy

December 2, 2016 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

The era of industrialization set many of the workplace standards—and conflicts—that linger today. More than 100 years later, many of those practices are gradually evolving, but some believe that enabling new forms of work could ultimately solve some of the U.S.’s most pressing economic issues.

“A lot of the growth in jobs has been knowledge work, and this idea that people need to work from nine to five, in one specific place, for one employer, doesn’t make as much sense,” suggests Stephane Kasriel, CEO of Upwork, a global freelancing platform.

At the turn of the century, when manufacturing was the primary driver of the U.S. economy, it was necessary for large groups of people to arrive to work at the same location and work the same hours. As a result, towns and cities sprung up around these manufacturing hubs.

Cities and towns that were initially built around factories and plants have since gone in one of two directions: They declined when manufacturing jobs started to disappear, or they evolved into major cities, where the cost of living today is reaching unsustainable levels.

“If you look at the last 40 years or so, GDP has become more concentrated in a smaller number of cities,” says Kasriel. “There are about 100 cities in the world that do about 50% of the world’s GDP.” As a result, most cities in the U.S. today are either in decline or booming at an unsustainable rate.

One clear indicator of this is the price of housing. In Arkansas, for example, you can find a spacious six-bedroom, five-bathroom home for $300,000, whereas that same budget would hardly cover a 304-square-foot studio in Los Angeles.

One potential solution for both the rapidly declining and unsustainably growing U.S. cities, suggests Kasriel, is by enabling more remote and freelance work. “A lot of people who live [in cities like San Francisco and New York] live there because the job demands it,” he says. “If you, as an employer, could relax that constraint and say, ‘You can work from anywhere around the country, either as a freelancer or an employee,'” he explains, “you’d see a lot of people move out.”

According to the 2016 Freelancing in America study by Upwork and the Freelancers Union, 47% of American freelancers live in the suburbs, and 18% work in rural areas. If more people are able to take their big-city paycheck back to their local community, not only will their money go further, but it will help support their local economy while the rising cost of living could begin to slow in the big cities they leave behind.

According to the 2016 Freelancing in America study, 70% of freelancers believe that there needs to be more discussion by lawmakers on how to empower the independent workforce.

One state, however, has moved forward with improving conditions for freelancers. The State of New York recently passed a wage protection bill for independent workers, known as the Freelance Isn’t Free Act. While some see this as a sign that lawmakers are beginning to understand the importance of the freelance economy, others believe the passage of the bill in New York may have been a result of unique circumstances that don’t necessarily exist elsewhere.

“Freelancers are an important part of the economy nationwide,” says Shane Snow, cofounder of Contently, an online marketplace for freelance writers. “I think they get more attention in places like New York that is more creative and media-focused, where more businesses are actively relying on local freelance talent.”

Outside of New York, freelancers regularly struggle with nonpayment and late-payment issues. According to the Freelancing in America survey, seven out of 10 freelancers have encountered issues related to getting paid on time.

“Gizmodo still owes me $500,” jokes Snow. “That happens when you’re a freelancer.”

In lieu of government protection, freelancers are increasingly turning to platforms like Contently and Upwork, which pay their freelancers within a few days of work submission. Upwork accomplishes this by being registered in the State of California as an escrow agent, giving them the ability to guarantee on-time payments to freelancers, but also provide employers with a grace period to dispute any charges.

Contently, on the other hand, has been able to negotiate some of its larger clients into paying some or all of their annual estimated freelancer fees upfront, providing enough cash flow to allow the company to pay freelancers for their work upon submission.

But outside of these platforms, many freelancers are paid 60 or 90 days after submitting their work, and about half of freelancers surveyed in 2014 reported issues with getting paid, citing an average loss of $6,390 as a result of nonpayment. That’s money that isn’t being put back into their local economies.

Both Kasriel and Snow believe that protecting freelancers ultimately benefits everyone, not just the freelancers themselves, as it can help move incomes away from cities that are quickly becoming unaffordable and toward those that are in decline.

“You talk to the people in Congress that represent the big cities, and they struggle with the cost of living, then you talk to other people from Congress that represent the cities that struggle with unemployment—well, I have a solution for you,” says Kasriel, suggesting that more protection for freelancers would encourage more to enter the freelance economy, improve unemployment in some areas, and congestion and the rising cost of living in others. “We haven’t missed the boat,” he points out, “but I would say, Let’s not wait 10 years, because the boat is moving.”

To find freelancers, you can go to a site like toptal.com

3D Printing: Should Designers And Developers Take Notice?

March 25, 2016 by Paul and Sarah Edwards 1 Comment

BY NERMIN HAJDARBEGOVIC – TECHNICAL EDITOR @ TOPTAL

3D printing is not a new technology, but recent advances in several fields have made it more accessible to hobbyists and businesses. Compared to other tech sectors, it’s still a small industry, but most analysts agree it has a lot of potential. But where is the potential for freelance designers and software engineers?

A fellow Toptaler asked me this a couple of weeks ago, because I used to cover 3D printing for a couple of publications. I had no clear answer. I couldn’t just list business opportunities because this is a niche industry with a limited upside and mass market appeal. What’s more, 3D printing is still not a mature technology, which means there is not a lot in the way of standardisation and online resources for designers and developers willing to take the plunge.

However, this does not mean there are no business opportunities; they’re out there, but they are limited. In this post, I will try to explain what makes the 3D printing industry different, and what freelancers can expect moving forward.

3D Printing For Hobbyists And Businesses

First of all, I think we need to distinguish between two very different niches in the 3D printing, or additive manufacturing industry.

On one end of the spectrum, you have countless hardware enthusiasts, software developers and designers working on open-source projects. The RepRap project embodies this lean and open approach better than any similar initiative in the industry. RepRap stands for Replicating Rapid Prototyper and it’s basically an initiative to develop inexpensive printers based on fused filament fabrication (FFF) technology. Essentially, that is Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) technology, but RepRap can’t use that name because it was commercialised by Stratasys. When the company’s patent on FDM expired, FDM was embraced by the open-source community, albeit under a different name.

3D printing is not a new technology, but recent advances in several fields have made it more accessible to hobbyists and businesses.

RepRap turned ten this year, with the first printers showing up a few years after launch. By 2010, the RepRap project was on its third generation design, and the RepRap community saw a lot of growth over the next few years.

One noteworthy feature to come out of the RepRap initiative is self-replication; the ultimate goal of the project is to create a 3D printer that will eventually replicate itself. We are not there yet, but some RepRap designs allow users to print three quarters of the printer. You still can’t print extruders and electric servos, but it’s a start.

However, RepRap was never supposed to be a commercial success. It was created as a tech-first initiative, so it was never consumer-centric. It was all about pioneering various technologies and bringing them to the hobbyist market at low cost. RepRap was never supposed to be a cash cow.

So what about big business? A number of industry pioneers have already become 3D printing heavyweights. These include Stratasys, 3D Systems, Ultimaker and Printbot. RepRap printers still command a big market share, and they’re not being squeezed out by proprietary platforms. In fact, most vendors have no choice but to embrace some RepRap standards in order to guarantee compatibility.

However, simply listing 3D printing companies and their respective market share does not paint the full picture. For example, RepRap is limited to FFF technology, which is the most widespread 3D printing technology today. The problem is that FFF printers have a lot of limitations, which means they cannot be used in many industries.

Different Technologies For Different Applications

To get a better idea of what’s out there, we need to take a look at currently available 3D printing technologies. This might not seem interesting if you’re not a hardware geek, but it’s important to understand the difference between various printing technologies (and I will try to keep this section as brief as possible).

Although hobbyist FFF printers are relatively inexpensive, certain types of professional 3D printers can cost as much as your home.

FFF/FDM usually relies on thermoplastic “filament” heated by the printer extruder prior to being deposited on the print bed. Most FFF printers rely on ABS and PLA plastic filament, but the latest models also use polycarbonate (PC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) filament. Some even use metal wire instead of plastic, while others use sawdust to create quasi-wood objects. Some can even print food, chocolate, pasta and so on.
Granular printers are different beasts since their material is not filament but, usually, powdered metal. These printers tend to be based on laser technology (although they don’t have much in common with your office laser printer). They use a powerful laser to selectively fuse granular materials. There are several ways of doing this: Selective laser sintering (SLS) printers fuse small metal particles by the process of “sintering,” while selective laser melting (SLM) printers melt the powder. Electron beam melting (EBM) printers hits metal powder with an electron beam in a vacuum environment
Stereolithography (SLA) printers transform liquid raw material into solids using light. These printers have a number of advantages, in terms of accuracy and the ability to produce complex objects in a single pass, because SLA prints don’t require struts or supports, in most cases. The downside is that the choice of materials is very limited. They are usually exotic liquid polymers, and can’t be used to print metal or chocolate.

There are a few more 3D printing technologies out there, but I see no point in covering all of them for the purposes of this blog post.

The Challenge

So why aren’t we all playing around with 3D printers in our homes and offices? Why can’t we print objects the same way we print invoices, sheets and emails? 3D printing is not going mainstream anytime soon, and here are some challenges and issues that need to be addressed first.

Prohibitively expensive hardware
Limited user base (compared to traditional printers)
Immature technology
Speed
Price/performance, ROI
Running costs
Energy efficiency

With each new generation, entry-level 3D printers become a bit cheaper, but they are still too expensive for most potential users. It’s one thing to buy a $200 printer for your home or office, you’ll probably end up using it a lot, but the same isn’t necessarily true of 3D printers. How many people need to print documents, and how many need to print 3D objects?

Technology is improving, but serious limitations persist. 3D printers are still slow, are sensitive to all sorts of adverse conditions, their “printbeds” tend to be small (especially on inexpensive models), the choice of materials is limited and filament can be expensive.

The reason why businesses aren’t lining up to buy 3D printers is simple: ROI. 3D printers still can’t come close to traditional manufacturing methods in terms of speed, cost and energy efficiency. This does not mean industry isn’t going to shift to 3D printing in the future; we are already seeing some pioneering developments, but 3D printers won’t render traditional manufacturing techniques obsolete soon.

Still, there are some noteworthy exceptions. A couple of years ago, General Electric set out to design and build a new fuel injection nozzle for its next generation CFM LEAP turbofan engine, which is bound to end up in hundreds of airliners. GE eventually settled on 3D-printed titanium nozzles. The reason? The new 3D printed nozzle ended up 25 percent lighter than the previous design and consisted of a single part instead of 18 on the old nozzle. Durability is expected to be five times better. These nozzles will be used in engines manufactured in 2016 and beyond. GE hopes to produce more than 100,000 3D-printed parts by the end of the decade.

A team of GE engineers decided to create a working replica of one of the company’s engines, using a new granular printing technique dubbed “metal laser melting.”

Long story short, no, you won’t buy 3D-printed toys for $2 anytime soon, but you will fly on airliners powered by more efficient and reliable engines, made possible by 3D printing. There won’t be any 3D-printed chocolate in your local mall, at least not yet, but your dentist will tell you it’s probably not a good idea to eat chocolate anyway, right after you get your 3D-printed prosthetic.

There Is Another Way: 3D Printing Fulfilment Services

So, you have a great idea for a product, but first you need a small series of prototypes. Who do you call? Do you buy a bunch of 3D printers? Or do you simply send the design to a fulfilment service that will ship you the completed models in a matter of days?

Fulfilment services allow consumers and small businesses to take advantage of sophisticated 3D printing infrastructure without burning capital.

A 3D printing fulfilment service seems like a hassle-free choice, and that’s the direction the industry seems to be taking. Many 3D printing outfits have launched similar services and are collaborating with other industry leaders. One example of this symbiotic relationship is Stratasys Direct Express, which recently partnered with Adobe and enabled Photoshop CC integration, offering colour 3D printing for professional designers.

Google and Motorola didn’t invest billions in their own 3D printing facilities when they unveiled the Ara modular smartphone concept. They outsourced module manufacturing to 3D Systems. This example also underscores the potential flexibility of additive manufacturing: Ara is based around an alloy exoskeleton filled with various standardised modules that could be 3D printed. Since the modules have to connect to the exoskeleton, 3D Systems developed a new technique of depositing conductive materials within the printed components, which is a far cry from traditional 3D printer prototyping.

3D fulfilment services usually offer several different printing technologies, cutting-edge hardware and support. Why bother getting a $2,000 printer when you can simply send your designs to professionals and use any of a variety of professional printers, some of which cost more than your home? And let’s not forget about economy of scale; big services can and should offer a superior price/performance ratio compared to in-house printing.

In my opinion, this is the way to go. This straightforward business model has a lot going for it, and it’s hard to see how individuals and small businesses could compete on an even playing field. In terms of price, size and energy consumption, a professional 3D printer has more in common with a printing press than your LaserJet, and how many people need a printing press in their home or office?

(One of my pet peeves is the name itself. When you mention a “printer” in conversation, most people think of their home inkjet printer, or office printer. While it’s true that 3D printers are printers, they don’t have much in common with traditional printers, and this distinction is often lost on laymen. If we just kept calling them additive manufacturing machines, this wouldn’t be an issue.)

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

3D Printing For Designers And Developers

What does all this mean for the average visual designer or software engineer? Will 3D printing change the way we do business? Will it enable rapid prototyping or even cheap small-scale manufacturing? When are we going to cook up some 3D-printed Barilla pasta for lunch?

I am afraid there is no simple answer because you can look at it from several perspectives. It all depends on your personal affinities and goals.

There are a few different ways designers and developers might become involved in 3D printing:

Participation in open-source initiatives (RepRap)
Use of professional design tools (Adobe CC)
Integration of printing functionality to applications (Autodesk’s Spark 3D printing platform)
Use of 3D printing fulfilment services
Integration of 3D printing fulfilment services

Most open-source initiatives are geared toward individual, hobbyist users. They are also valuable for education, and they can foster a lot of innovation. The downside is that there’s not a lot of money to be made in this niche. It’s mostly a labour of love. The good news is that the bar is set pretty low; you can get an entry-level printer and loads of plastic filament for under $500. You can get a cheap and relatively good 3D printer for the price of a good smartphone.

Integration of 3D design and printing capabilities could prove more lucrative in the long run. Designers don’t have to go out of their way to experiment with 3D printing because it’s already accessible through leading software packages. Sooner or later, a client will start asking questions about 3D printed prototypes or small-scale production, so depending on your niche, it could be a good idea to do a bit of research.

We’re left with the elephant in the room: 3D printing fulfilment services.

Outsourcing 3D Printing Via The Cloud

On the face of it, fulfilment services seem to be the answer to everything. They put professional services within the reach of individuals, startups, and small businesses who otherwise couldn’t afford certain printing techniques, like laser sintering or stereolithography. They’re practically the only viable way of integrating 3D printing into a range of different services, mainly through cloud-based mobile and web apps.

So what are the downsides? There aren’t many.

Industrial scale fulfilment services are a relatively new concept. However, availability is still limited. Sure, if you need to print a few dozen titanium prototypes in California that won’t be a problem, but what if you need to do the exact same thing in Botswana or Bahrain? It will be more expensive because the manufactured designs will have to be shipped around the globe. On-site manufacturing sounds good, but it could prove prohibitively expensive

Of course, on-site manufacturing has a lot going for it; if a business needs to quickly iterate and revise designs, then the speed and convenience of 3D printer rapid prototyping can’t be matched by printing services. This is a relatively tight niche, but it’s by no means small. Design studios, architects, engineers, various maintenance departments, logistics, education; they all need on-site printers. Besides, if you need a printed replacement part on the International Space Station, you can’t exactly call Amazon. On another note, 3D printing in space would have made the exploits of the Apollo 13 crew look less impressive. No wonder NASA is already experimenting with them in space.

It’s worth noting that 3D printers can be used to print more than replacement parts and passive components. They can also be used to print working electrical components, ranging from speakers to printed circuit boards (PCB). PCB prototyping is a nice niche because traditional methods are slow and expensive. A 3D printer with a spool of conductive filament can usually do the trick on-site, on time, and on budget.

Still, as far as mass market applications go, chances are this space will be dominated by big players like Amazon, Stratasys, 3D Systems, and possibly Hewlett-Packard. As the industry matures, worldwide availability should become a non-issue, prices will go down and new hardware will offer new opportunities and superior quality.

In my opinion, the biggest problem the industry currently faces is the lack of use-cases. Sure, it sounds convenient, but who is it for? How do we get 3D-printed products into the hands of mainstream consumers?

This question is not as straightforward as it seems because additive manufacturing has been hyped in recent years. Just try googling for 3D printing use-cases and you’ll see what I mean: 3D printing seems to be the answer to all our problems, but in reality most of it is hype, based on long-term projections.

So, I decided to include research from an unbiased source: UK’s Intellectual Property Office. The paper, titledThe Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector: An Analysis of Six Case Studies is extensive and examines the potential impact of additive manufacturing on several industries: automotive, domestic appliances, replacement parts, customised goods, reverse engineering, games and computer generated graphics.

Customised goods and CGI-derived designs stand out as the most realistic use cases for freelancers, so let’s take a closer look.

Personalised Manufacturing

One of the biggest advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing methods is the ability to produce one-off designs or small series. How long would it take to create a plastic toy using traditional manufacturing? You’d need loads of equipment, cast dies and whatnot. With 3D printing, it’s just a matter of selecting a wireframe and clicking. This means it’s possible to produce unique designs, tailored to meet the needs of different customers.

Additive manufacturing can enable average consumers to design and customise various products prior to making a purchase. This can be done using professional desktop applications, or even web and mobile apps. Nobody expects the average consumer to design an item from the ground up, but even a child could customise a toy using a simplified mobile app.

The potential for personalised manufacturing is one of the key benefits provided by 3D printing.

Such a platform would have to include loads of different colour or decal options, along with the 3D wireframes themselves. What’s more, it should be possible to create modular designs, so if kids are customising a toy car or doll, they could choose between scores of different, but compatible, components that would be assembled to make the product.

Yes, instead of customising virtual environments in apps and games, kids born today will be able to personalise their real toys, or turn their video game characters into action figures. It kinda makes you wish you were born a couple of decades later, doesn’t it?

Here are a few personalised 3D printing use-cases with mass market appeal:

Toys
Custom jewelry
DIY and hobbyist products
Fashion and gadget accessories
Personalised appliances and household items

However, products don’t have to be personalised to match your taste; they could also be made to perfectly match your physique, like a tailored suit. These products might not have the mass market appeal of personalised toys, but that doesn’t make them less exciting. In fact, I find them a lot more interesting than a customised brooch or doll.

Here are just some examples:

Digital dentistry
Surgery (mockups for training, 3D-printed replacement joints)
Advanced prosthetics
Tailored equipment and apparel for various professions
Sports equipment and accessories

Sure, these applications don’t have nearly the same emotional appeal as the ones I mentioned earlier, but in the big scheme of things they could be just as lucrative and important, especially when you consider medical applications.

The Implications And Future Of 3D Printing

So what’s the bottom line? Will 3D printing change the industrial landscape? Is it really the next industrial revolution?

3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is a very promising, but immature, technology. It clearly has a lot of potential, but we’re still nowhere close to realising it even though the industry is seeing a lot of growth.

In fact, the market for 3D printing services, hardware, and materials, has been growing at a healthy double-digit rate for years. Most analysts expect the market to double by the end of the decade, passing the $10 billion mark. That may sound like a lot of money, but let’s put it in perspective: The same analysts expect annual smartphone shipments for 2015 to end up in the 1.3 to 1.4 billion unit range.

Looking past the hype, 3D printing is a technology with limited appeal, at least at this early stage. However, we will continue to see growth and development for the foreseeable future, backed by new use-cases. Many of these use-cases and business models will be based around 3D printing fulfilment services. This is good news for small businesses and individuals, because they will be able to use third-party infrastructure with relative ease. They won’t have to buy dozens of printers, they will simply integrate a few APIs to their platform and that’s it.

In the short term, this is the future of 3D printing, at least from a mass market perspective.

We’ll Gain More Through Shared Interests Than Turning on Each Other

January 18, 2014 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

I spend a lot of time reading, both because I like to do it – not surprising from someone who had a dream as a young boy to write a book – and because I need to do it in order to give my consulting clients and what I write and talk about to be current.

In growing up, we learned to respect and care for our elders. In contrast, I experience anger from many younger people, sometimes directed against the boomer generation. You see this in comment sections of blogs and articles as well as sometimes experiencing verbally. Other times younger people, facing difficult life situations themselves, express their anger, living off their parents. This anger is not an accident. First, we’re experiencing a change of generations as boomers retire and Millenials are coming of age. Both groups are experiencing significant problems.

This change of generations has historically produced tensions. Think of how the boomer generations dissented from the prevailing cultural norms of their parents – hippies, the demonstrations at the 1968 Demonstration Convention in Chicago. Generations have different personalities – some generations are more activist like boomers and today’s Millenials. But both have common interests, though it’s sometimes hard to think of this when this generational change is complicated by additional forces, such as:

The rapid change in technology and trade that is affecting every sector of the economy and life: interconnectedness from smart phones to all kinds of devices, changes in health care, robots replacing workers, food supply and energy. Changes in retailing are apt to result in the closing of stores that have been household names for generations.
Big-money backed foundations have been stoking anger at social security for years, setting for the idea that it won’t be around for the Millenials. Millenials blame the boomers for too many wars, overusing the nation’s resources and having a Congress that 9 in 10 people do not respect. A dangerous situation for a nation based on consent of the governed.
Expressions of anger can be felt and seen in flash mobs, the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. the actions of individuals like Edward Snowden,

Generational anger has happened before. The noted authors of Generations and other titles, William Strauss andNeil Howe, after analyzing 500 years of American history and the histories of a number of other nations, find patterns repeating themselves. This is expressed in ideas, attitudes, dress, music, wars, and in every facet of our lives.

The fact of the matter is that the deep interests of Millenials and Boomers are not different – if we eliminate the blaming game. It’s not in anyone’s interest to allow the problems we face together are simply a matter of the young versus the old. After all the overwhelming majority boomers have had no or little role in the problems this nation now faces. While Millenials are burdened by student debt, older people are being pushed out of jobs and careers as businesses change the technology of work. According to the National Academy of Social Insurance , only one in five seniors have incomes more than $58,000 a year. The other 80% rely on Social Security as their primary income source.

The upshot is we’re all in this together. As Richard Eskow wrote in a recent article, “The generational war is a hoax.” Bridges need building that will foster cooperation, not competition among generations. People of all ages have common cause in finding solutions that will enable a new era in this nation’s journey.

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment.

[maxbutton id=”11″]

If you think we can help you, we offer webinars and consulting.

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Earning a living is essential for “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” A proposition for the 2014

December 30, 2013 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

For us, the holidays are a break. Our son comes from Bay Area where he designs interfaces. It’s also a time to catch up on things we want to do and some we need to do. For too many people, particularly those past 40, like us, this holiday is a time of despair. Sometimes they blame themselves, but the basic principle at stake here is that the ability to earn a living is at the heart of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Even during this Christmas holiday, thousands of workers got pink slips from corporations such as Citibank and Walgreen.

Those being laid off are middle class people who, usually through no fault of their own, are without a job or a business whose clientele are gone or no longer have the funds to use or buy what the business offers.

If you or a family member is not feeling it personally, you know from the news that federal unemployment insurance benefits are ending for 1.3 million Americans. These were not among those we think of as being poor.

Approximately 40 percent of Americans who have received long-term unemployment benefits since 2008 had previously earned between $30,000 and $75,000 and tw

o-thirds had incomes at least twice the poverty level. These include the young and the old, attorneys, financial executives, information technology experts, web designers, and hospital administrators – people from multiple occupations. They were working for a company that was acquired, decided to downsize, replacing workers with automation or outsourced – a bad break that can happen to someone holding a job or owning a business dependent on the local or some segment of the economy, which for some reason undergoes change or becoming obsolete.

Most importantly, these people want to work, but often find they are told they are overqualified. For the most part, these are people who made earned their livelihoods through brains and personality. Some think of doing blue collar work, but find they don’t have the skills to become a mechanic or technician.

Health and emotional problems, particularly depress follows the loss of a job. America cannot afford these casualties of the economy. Talent is lost and when people become dependent, they become a burden on family and government institutions. Even when people take lower paying jobs, the economy loses because these people are not able to spend money that stimulate the economy and when they don’t have the money to spend, you can think of this lack of spending as draining the economy.

This problem is not expected to go away. In fact, it’s projected that a total of 5 million unemployed Americans will lose their benefits by the end of 2014.

If the Congress does nothing more in the next year than to make it possible for the millions of Americans who want to work to get the support and retraining needed, then Congress will begin to regain some of the trust needed to keep our way of life.

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment.

[maxbutton id=”11″]

If you think we can help you, we offer webinars and consulting. mailto:elmstreeteconomy.com

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Corporations Getting Tax Shelter Abroad Means Make Local Businesses The Hope of The Future

October 13, 2013 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

More and more corporations are giving up their identity as American companies to avoid taxation by reincorporating in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or in Ireland. as pointed out in a recent New York Times story.

Among these corporations are Fruit of the Loom, Ingersoll-Rand, Eaton Corp., and Ensco International Inc . As these companies pay less taxes in the U.S. while doing business around the world, local businesses become more important. Why?

Their importance comes about because first, they provide jobs, generally hiring people from their community, and second, they pay taxes – federal, state, and local taxes, including income and worker compensation.

When you shop or do businesses with a local businesses, it spends 45 cents of each dollar it takes in locally. This compares to only 15 cents spent locally by a corporate chain. If you have a job with a local employer, know that spending your money locally helps sustain the economy for everyone.

If you own a local business or provide a local service, you understand quite well what it means to you when someone says, “I wish I could use your service or buy your product, but right now our budget is stretched.” So when you are doing your own shopping, think about what this means to everyone in the community, you, included.

It’s the goal of Let’s Live Local, the non-profit we established to live by our motto, “live, work and shop locally.”

Corporate Tax Shelter Abroad Means Local Businesses The Hope Of The Future.

Excerpt:

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment.

[maxbutton id=”11″]

If you think we can help you, we offer webinars and consulting.

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Tags: corporations

Is it Time Take More Control of Your Time and Life by Moving Your Business or Home?

September 2, 2013 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

Are rising costs and an uncertain economy causing your to think this is a time in your life to free yourself of some of the hassles of maintaining a business or store front business? Perhaps you want to save time and with the increasing use of smart phones and tablets, is it important where you base your business? So why not cut your costs by moving your office into your home? While of course not all businesses have this choice, many do and the financial benefits for increasing profit on decreased revenue are great.

You can reduce or eliminate the cost of:

Office or store rental: Instead of paying rent, you can get a tax deduction for your office space.
Commuting: Auto expenses drop dramatically when you can walk to your office in seconds.
Business-related travel to and from your home becomes deductible too.
Food: coffee breaks and lunches are far less expensive at home.
Insurance: Riders or endorsements to your homeowner insurance policies cost less.
Child care: While you may still need some, it will certainly be less when working from home
Personnel: You should have no difficulty becoming a virtual company with your personnel gladly working from their homes. A newly published study by Stanford University found 51% of employees wanting to work from home and a 2009 JobNet survey found that over 70% of employees report willing or wanting to work from home.
Taxes: Additional possible deductions include a portion of homeowners dues and fees and real estate taxes (which can lower your “below-the-line” taxable income), furniture converted to business use, and a portion of the cost of entertaining business associates at home.

By keeping such costs down you can increase profits without raising prices. In fact, many companies shifting to a home-base find they can even lower prices while maintaining or even increasing profits. People who have moved their home office to an office outside the home tell us it takes 2.5 to 3 times the gross income to produce the same net income they were making when working from home.

Fortunately there is no longer a stigma attached to working from home. In fact it’s considered chic these days, especially considering it’s so very eco-friendly, a definite plus in the mind of many clients and customers.

And there’s a bonus above and beyond the bottom line: increased personal satisfaction. Repeated surveys over the years show that better than nine of ten of those who are home-based report they are happier working from home and would recommend it to others. Their reasons are many: more control over their time, more time with family, greater flexibility to balance home and work, a more relaxed environment, and more time to be involved with their local community or personal interests outside of work.

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment.

[maxbutton id=”11″]

If you think we can help you, we offer webinars and consulting.

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Adapted from our Costco Connection column from July, 2009

Where You Live Makes Localization All the More Important

July 24, 2012 by Paul and Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

A recent article in Forbes entitled The New Geography Of Jobs: Where You Live Matters More Than Ever – Forbes provides startling comparisons, which can mean the difference in finding a sustainable livelihood. Forbes cites a new book by Berkeley Economics Professor Enrico Moretti, entitled The New Geography of Jobs.

Within the same state, local economies vary significantly, determining this discretionary income and spending. This is evident from the differences in the share of workers who have college degrees and their average salaries. For example, in Stamford, Connecticut only 15% of the workforce are college graduates with average salaries of $54,651 while in Stamford, 56% of workers have college degrees with average salaries of $133,479. In Modesto, California, 16% of workers graduated college and earn an average of $60,563 and in San Jose, it is 47% and $87,033. Similar contrasts can be found in many states.

The higher salaries results in the demand for more service and support jobs and how much those with service and support jobs earn. The kind of jobs and businesses range from business services to dog walking, fitness coaches and financial planners. Another consequence of lower incomes is mobility – the ability to move to another job.

We believe the net consequence of this is to make localization imperative because it enables the creation of local businesses and institutions through which people can buy cooperatively, barter, share or engage in exchanges of such resources as tools and clothing, and barter for things they need.

Communities have a choice when faced with unfavorable economic statistics – either let their areas deteriorate or work together to find local solutions. For more reasons for why localization is vital, see our earlier blog.

you think we can help, we offer counseling.

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment

Does Being Middle Class Require a New Definition of Success?

July 1, 2012 by Sarah Edwards Leave a Comment

“Who is the middle-class?” This is the most common question we have been asked while doing dozens of interviews. When economists are asked about who is middle class, they answer the question by citing specific income ranges. But the ranges vary widely, anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000. So income doesn’t seem to be the key to why 60% of Americans define themselves as middle class.

Middle class is more of a state of mind than a bank balance. We define ourselves as middle class as long as we feel we’re on track to success and thereby to a happy, secure life. But just what is success?

That is the question John Izzo, Ph.D., asked 250 people from all walks of life in writing is book Five Secrets You Must Discover before You Die. You might be surprised at the answers he got.

First, he found that 84% of people he interviewed reported that “having money beyond a basic level of comfort did not increase their personal happiness.” Second, he found that 81% said the most important factor in career happiness was “being true to yourself.”

Psychologist and associate professor at Knox College, Tim Kasser goes a step further in disconnecting happiness from material success. In his books, The High Price of Materialism and Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World, Kasser summarizes extensive research to show that after reaching a basic level of comfort, continually striving for more money and more things actually works against our sense of happiness.

In writing Middle-Class Lifeboat, we found that in choosing to pursue new lifestyles and sometimes new careers, the people we interviewed had re-defined success . It no longer meant making more money or owning more things. They were stepping out of our materialistic consumer culture and found they were HAPPIER!!

So instead of aspiring to some externally-measured, material definition of success, perhaps it’s time for us to re-evaluate what makes us happy and define that as success. What would that be for you? How would it be different from what society’s definition of “success?”

If you think we can help, we offer counseling.

[maxbutton id=”1″]

Comments and questions on the substance of this blogs are welcome. If you have other questions about this website, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment

Health Care for All

December 5, 2011 by Paul and Sarah Edwards 16 Comments

Do you remember the Harry and Louise ads used by the health insurance industry to help defeat the Clinton health care initiative in the 1990’s? Chances are today a couple like Harry and Louise, who were so happy with their employer-provided health insurance plan then, are worrying now about whether they can afford the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, or they may not have any health insurance at all. In the past few years, the number of employers offering any health coverage has slipped from 7 in 10 to 6 in 10.

In fact, when medical bills now prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. This is a dramatic shift from when in the late 1960’s I did a study for the Bankruptcy Court of Western Missouri to determine why people were taking bankruptcy. Only one in fifty – just 2% – cited medical bills as the reason.

Who doesn’t know someone who has delayed or gone without treatment because they can’t afford it and don’t have health insurance to cover what they need? How ironic considering Americans spend more per capita on health care than any other advanced country.

While there is no single reason for our health care predicament, one factor that contributes mightily to what prompts so many personal health calamities are are big insurance companies motivated primarily by profit, are systems for denying care at any chance. Consider how they routinely deny coverage to people who consider themselves to be in good or excellent health. Here, for example, are some of the grounds insurance companies are using to prevent people from qualifying for health insurance:

allergies, breast implants, ear infections, herpes, high blood pressure, impotence, infertility, mild depression, migraines,miscarriage, pregnancy “expectant fatherhood”, planned adoption, psoriasis, recurrent tonsillitis, ringworm, swelling from a spider bite, three months of psychological counseling after a marriage breakup, and varicose veins.

The shame is that every American could have health insurance for about what is being spent on health care today if we did just one thing – wring out the administrative cost and profit out of health insurance that accounts for one dollar in four of what we pay for health insurance. Before 1990, insurance companies like Blue Cross charged only about 5% for their services. Even today non-profit systems like Kaiser Permanente and Medicare can offer care for less than 5% for such costs, not 25%; Canadian Health Insurance runs below 3.2%.

In other words, we know about one dollar in every five could be saved from what’s now going into processing paper, corporate marketing, executive bonuses, and shareholder profits.

How could this happen? Many people advocate Medicare for All. How might this be funded? Congressman Dennis Kucinich calculates a 7.7% payroll tax will enable universal coverage. The State of California calculates that a 4% payroll and a 2% income tax would provide health coverage for all Californians.

But there are other alternatives, too, such as:

Returning to an all cash system and allowing new community-based health insurance plans and pricing to emerge. Right now the cash price for health care in the U.S. is a fraction of those billed insurance companies, exceeding the co-pays. They could enable U.S. health care costs more in line with those in countries that are now attracting medical tourism when people who needing hip replacements, for example, spend $10,000 on travel in order to get a new hip for $5,400 instead of the $45,000 it would cost in the U.S.

One example of the kind of insurance companies that could emerge is the Freelancers Insurance Company in New York State. The for-profit company is wholly owned by the nonprofit Freelancers Union. It insures 25,000 independent workers and family members charging premiums more than a third below what they would otherwise pay for health insurance. Another example is Grand Junction, Colorado. Such a plan would be possible in an Elm Street Economy.

Regardless of the alternative we settle upon, no one should profit from insuring the illness of others. We need to wring the administrative costs out of the system, provide professionals with a decent income, and quality health care for all without raising the overall cost of health spending.

Let’s use our voices and voting power to make this happen. It can start by creating local Elm Street Economies.

Comments on the substance of the blogs are welcome. If you have other questions, please contact me directly for a consulting appointment.