Apple to deploy 1Password to all 100,000 employees, acquisition talks underway

https://ift.tt/2m5wg6d


Apple acquires an average of 15 to 20 companies a year, according to CEO Tim Cook. Of that number, we only hear about a couple, as most of these acquisitions or aqcui-hires are not consumer-facing, nor disclosed. However, we have exclusively learned that Apple is planning an interesting partnership and a potential acquisition of AgileBits, maker of the popular password manager 1Password.

According to our source, after many months of planning, Apple plans to deploy 1Password internally to all 100,000 employees. This includes not just employees in Cupertino, but extends all the way to retail, too. Furthermore, the company is said to have carved out a deal that includes family plans, giving up to 5 family members of each employee a free license for 1Password. With more and more emphasis on security in general, and especially at Apple, there are a number of reasons this deal makes sense. We’re told that 100 Apple employees will start using 1Password through this initiative starting this week, with the full 100,000 users expected to be activated within the next one to two months.

Apple had very specific requirements for this deal, code-named B2, all around, as you would expect. Some of these include a maximum 4-hour response time (SLA) through customer support for Apple employees, translations of all 1Password support pages into all major international languages, and plenty more. In fact, since AgileBits wasn’t even prepared for this kind of influx of users, the company turned to a third-party call management service that will help to provide phone support in order to fulfill the contractual requirements of the deal. Apple is also using the stand-alone version of 1Password — at first the company considered using the version that includes AgileBits syncing service that routes through cloud providers like Amazon AWS, but Apple quickly decided that wasn’t acceptable. The standalone version of the software lets users sync through iCloud, something Apple is undoubtedly more comfortable with.

While Apple is said to have a custom rate for this incredibly large deal with AgileBits, we haven’t been able to confirm what the company is paying. A standard family license goes for $60/year. If the company hypothetically secured a 50% discount, Apple would be paying around $2.5 million a year for the deal. There’s certainly a lot of revenue at stake here, and we have also confirmed that AgileBits started paying out large bonuses after this deal was signed. Not only did the top management team bonus up to the tune of six-figures each, but AgileBits also paid every single employee at the company a bonus.

1Password has been used for many years by consumers and businesses of every industry and background, so it’s no surprise Apple feels that this is a piece of software the company can rely on from a security perspective. But a looming question is why Apple would be paying millions of dollars a year for the deal instead of making an outright acquisition.

AgileBits’ annual revenue is said to be around the $5 million to $10 million range, and our source told us the company would most likely sell for two to three times revenue. Could Apple just be kicking the tires before diving in? Possibly, but it would seem unlikely at this point. Either this deal is the actual acquisition, structured in a way that provides additional annual revenue for a set number of years, or there’s something else going on. Jeff Shiner, the CEO of AgileBits, was overheard talking about the “Apple acquisition” in the glass conference room in the company’s Toronto office recently, but we have no firm details on what the context was or any specifics of the potential deal. We have reached out to both Apple and AgileBits for comment.

It would certainly be great to see Apple integrate 1Password, or some Apple-esque version of it, much like the company has done with earlier iOS acquisition Workflow and the new Shortcuts app.



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Microsoft’s $399 Surface Go aims to stand out from iPads or Chromebooks

https://ift.tt/2L19RVY

Microsoft’s new Surface Go is finally official after months of rumors and leaks. It’s an inexpensive 10-inch tablet designed to be a smaller and less powerful version of the Surface Pro. While the exterior of the Surface Go makes it look like a baby Surface Pro, Microsoft has changed a lot inside. The base model is priced at $399, but it only ships with 4GB of RAM, 64GB of slower eMMC storage, and a less powerful Intel Pentium Gold processor. Prices quickly jump to over $600 after adding the all important Type Cover, more RAM, a faster SSD, and other Surface add-ons. With these specs and price points in mind, who exactly is the Surface Go for?

Microsoft isn’t targeting its Surface Go at any particular customer from what I can tell. It’s not an iPad killer, it’s not going directly after Chromebooks, and it’s not really challenging $400 Windows laptops. While the Surface Laptop launched at an education event alongside Windows 10 S, the Surface Go appears to be targeted far more broadly across education, regular consumers, and even commercial usage. It’s clearly designed to be a cheaper and more portable Surface that lowers the barrier of entry for those put off by the price of a Surface Pro and its more capable specifications. It’s also aiming to be more than an iPad or a Chromebook.

Surface Go vs. Surface ProPhoto by Dan Seifert / The Verge
Surface Go isn’t really a direct iPad competitor

It’s natural to compare the Surface Go to Apple’s iPad, but the two are not like-for-like competitors. Apple’s base model iPad is priced at $329. If you only want a pure tablet, the Surface Go won’t offer the best experience as it doesn’t have the 1.3 million apps that are designed and optimized for the iPad. Let’s face it: if you’re going to buy just a tablet, the iPad is the only one worth buying right now.

Surface has carved out its own niche in tablet computing through hybrid devices. That’s why the company continues to advertise its Surface devices with Type Covers that, in the case of Surface Go, cost an extra $99. These keyboards turn the Surface Go into more of a laptop, in the same vein the Surface line has always tried to capitalize on. It’s the unique selling point of Surface tablets, and it leverages Microsoft’s strength in PCs. Apple doesn’t offer a keyboard for its regular iPad, but it has managed to mostly copy the Surface concept with its iPad Pro, as have many of Microsoft’s PC partners. But Apple has so far refused to add cursor support to its iPad lineup, so users are forced to constantly reach out and touch the screen to navigate around. Microsoft’s Surface devices do a better job of bridging that gap between tablet and laptop.

Equally, the Surface Go isn’t directly challenging Chromebooks or $400 Windows laptops. Once you’ve added the Type Cover, the price for the base Surface Go model jumps to $498. If you’re considering a laptop in this range then there are better options with bigger screens, and Google’s Chromebooks regularly sell for less than $500. Microsoft’s higher-specced Surface Go model is priced at $549 for 8GB of RAM and 128GB of faster SSD storage instead of eMMC. Once you’ve added a keyboard to this, it’s $649 and approaching iPad Pro and Surface Pro pricing.

Surface Go kickstandPhoto by Dan Seifert / The Verge
Microsoft’s new Surface price point comes with risks

Microsoft appears to be targeting the area of the PC market between budget and premium. The Surface Go, like the $799 Surface Pro, is a tablet with a keyboard and stylus support that offers more than a regular iPad or Chromebook. It’s still dropping into a tricky part of the PC market, though, because the $400-$700 price point is where PC makers typically try to shove slower components into a more premium chassis. Microsoft is pulling the same trick, and the $399 base price is a typical marketing move meant to generate interest with the hope that you’ll buy the $549 model.

While it’s a tricky part of the PC market to play in, it’s also fraught with risk. The Surface 3 debuted three years ago as a cheaper Surface tablet targeted at students. It was a little fiddly to use as a laptop due to its size and kickstand, and performance wasn’t as good compared to similarly priced laptops. Microsoft has certainly learned some lessons from the Surface 3. The Surface Go has a big trackpad, USB-C charging (and a Surface Connector), a much better kickstand, and the type of premium design you don’t typically see at this end of the PC spectrum. But Microsoft’s new device is even smaller than the Surface 3. Microsoft’s risk is betting on a base model, with 4GB of RAM and 64GB of eMMC storage, to power an acceptable Windows 10 experience in such a small form factor.

That risk will either pay off and open up the Surface concept of tablet+laptop to a much broader audience, or it could dent the Surface brand, known for giving users a premium Windows experience. It’s especially risky launching an underpowered machine when Microsoft is still dealing with the fallout from Consumer Reports dropping its “recommended” badge from Surface devices due to reliability problems. We’ll find out if Microsoft’s Surface Go choices will pay off once the devices hit shelves next month.



from The Verge https://ift.tt/1jLudMg
via IFTTT

How to Maximize Your High-Deductible Health Plan

https://ift.tt/2NGimEm

If you have a high deductible health plan (HDHP) and end up needing emergency or planned surgery that puts you close to or over your deductible, consider what other procedures or care you can add on in that plan year, as Carolyn McClanahan explains for Forbes. “By approaching your medical care in a thoughtful manner, you may be able to ‘front load’ a bunch of care into one year and only need to meet one large deductible.”

After her husband needed emergency tests done (he ended up being fine), McClanahan realized their deductible for the year would easily be surpassed. That left them an opening:

As a former star athlete, he has a number of lingering musculoskeletal issues. After he recovered from the accident I encouraged him to get every body part checked out and get all the physical therapy he required. I’m not as “medically needy” but had some skin issues and allergy problems I could take care of in that year. Additionally, I stocked up on my allergy medication for the next year. By loading all our care into one year, we were able to avoid going to the doctor the next year. The plan worked beautifully.

Let’s put aside how messed up it is that you need to strategize health care at all in the U.S. to such an extent, lest you end up bankrupt. That’s the state of American health care in 2018.

Advertisement

It’s obviously not an ideal situation, but it’s a good reminder that planning your care can save you a bundle. You’ll want to start earlier than the year to make sure you can get everything in on time.

For some other HDHP hacking tips, check out this post from Beth Skwarecki, Lifehacker’s Health Editor, and remember all the “freebies” you can get without using your deductible.



from Lifehacker https://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

Why the world should adopt a basic income

https://ift.tt/2KOMeMZ


A BASIC income (BI) is defined as a modest, regular payment to every legal resident in the community, paid unconditionally as a right, regardless of income, employment or relationship status.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the case for BI does not rest on the assumption that robots and artificial intelligence will cause mass unemployment or that it would be a more efficient way of relieving poverty than present welfare systems (although it would). The main arguments are ethical and relate to social justice, individual freedom and the need for basic security.

First, a BI is a matter of social justice. The wealth and income of all of us has far more to do with the efforts and achievements of our collective forebears than with anything we do for ourselves. If we accept private inheritance, we should accept social inheritance, regarding a BI as a “social dividend” on our collective wealth. In an era of rentier capitalism, in which more and more income is being channelled to the owners of assets—physical, financial and intellectual—and in which wages will continue to stagnate, a BI would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system. And it would compensate the growing “precariat”, hit by labour flexibility, technological disruption and economic uncertainty.

In an era of rentier capitalism… [a basic income] would provide an anchor for a fairer income-distribution system

Second, a BI would enhance freedom. The political right preaches freedom but fails to recognise that financial insecurity constrains the ability to make rational choices. People must be able to say “no” to oppressive or exploitative relationships, as women know only too well. Some on the right understand that and support a BI. Meanwhile, the left has ignored freedom in its paternalistic social policies. Welfare recipients are treated as subjects of charity or pity, subject to arbitrary and intrusive controls to prove themselves “deserving”.

BI would enhance “republican freedom” from potential as well as actual domination by figures of unaccountable power. As argued elsewhere, a BI is the only welfare policy for which the “emancipatory value” is greater than the monetary value.

Third, a BI would give people basic (not total) security in an era of chronic economic insecurity. Basic security is a natural public good. Your having it does not deprive me from having it; indeed we gain from others having basic security. Psychologists have shown that insecurity lowers IQ and “mental bandwidth”, diminishing the ability to make rational decisions, causing stress and mental illness. Moreover, people with basic security tend to be more altruistic and empathetic, solidaristic and engaged in the community.

People with basic security tend to be more altruistic and empathetic, solidaristic and engaged in the community

Now to respond to the two most frequent objections to basic income. The first is that BI is unaffordable. Many of the sums bandied about are just back-of-the-envelope calculations that assume a certain level of basic income multiplied by the population. Such gross figures ignore clawback through the tax system, savings in other areas of public spending and dynamic effects. Studies in the UK and elsewhere have shown that BI is affordable even with existing tax/benefit systems.

That said, my preference would be a “social dividend” route, creating a national wealth fund built from rolling back the vast regressive subsidies and tax breaks governments now give out, as well as from ecological taxes and levies on all forms of rentier income, including that flowing to Big Tech from use of our personal data and metadata. The fund could pay a small basic income initially that would rise as it grows. As BI pilots and experiments have shown, even a small basic income can have a big impact on nutrition, health, schooling, economic activity and social solidarity.

Even a small basic income can have a big impact on nutrition, health, schooling, economic activity and social solidarity

The second objection is that a BI would induce laziness, undermining the work ethic. This is not borne out by the evidence, especially if all forms of work and not just paid labour are taken into account. Besides giving people more energy, confidence and ability to take risks, a BI would remove the poverty and precarity traps embedded in existing means-tested systems that are major disincentives to taking low-paid insecure jobs.

Since the status quo is untenable and inequitable, opponents of BI should show what alternative they propose that would provide basic security while enhancing freedom and serving social justice. I have not seen any such proposal.

Guy Standing is the author of “Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen” (Penguin, 2017)



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

How to Skate Like Connor McDavid 

https://ift.tt/2z9KgVX

How to Skate Like Connor McDavid 

Many people say that Connor McDavid is the fastest player in the NHL. That may be the case. If he is the fastest, wouldn’t you expect him to be more powerful and explosive then the average NHLer? If yo think like I previously did, then you will be blown away to hear that McDavid does not have stand out numbers in any of the off ice testing. Jack Eichel performed at a higher level in every single lower body explosive test, like broad jump, vertical, and sprints. So even though he is not way ahead of everyone in off ice speed and power, he is widely considered the player with the most speed and power on the ice. 

At Train 2.0 we believe that this is the case because McDavid has the best skating technique in the NHL. We have studied his movements and found that there are three distinct mechanics that he uses consistently in his skating. In this video we will show you what these three are and how McDavid uses them to be one of, if not the fastest player in the NHL! 

VIDEO

Hi, I'm Jason Yee. I'm a professional hockey player, kinesiologist, and the founder of Train 2.0. My goal is to make instructions for hockey players simple, trustworthy, and measurable by leveraging science, technology, and psychology. My method is to research NHLers through video, instruct others and myself, then gather feedback to refine my knowledge. I love documenting the journey publicly and online. I'd love to hear from you and let me know what you think - Your feedback is my oxygen. Thanks for reading my article today. Hit me up on email: jason@train2point0.com or follow my Instagram account: @train2point0

Share | Tweet | print | email


from Ice Hockey Coaching Tips & DrillsIce Hockey Coaching Tips & Drills https://ift.tt/29iJqEN
via IFTTT

CS50, Harvard’s Largest Class Expands Its Line Up of Courses

https://ift.tt/2tOdoNE


1 minute read  written by 

. Published on July 1, 2018

CS50 is Harvard University’s “introduction to the intellectual enterprises of computer science and the art of programming.” CS50x is the same class offered on edX and its largest class with over 1 million enrollments. It is also one of Class Central’s Top 50 MOOCs of All TIme. You can read our in-depth review of CS50x here.

The course is taught every fall by David Malan, and sometimes features guest lectures from tech luminaries like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and the previous CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer. In previous years, this class also has been taught in parallel at Yale.

Every time the course is taught at Harvard, the lectures are recorded and put online. In previous years they were streamed live directly from Harvard’s Sanders Theatre and at one point were even recorded in a Virtual Reality format.

Most recently, the staff behind CS50 added three new courses, each of which could be considered as a sequel to CS50x. They all pick up from where CS50 leaves off. The new courses are as follows:

I took a quick look at one the courses, and it seems the lectures are not taught by David Malan, but people in his team.

This is not the first time, that CS50 has launched new courses. The CS50 team previously has launched three courses previously: CS50’s AP® Computer Science PrinciplesCS50’s Understanding Technology, and CS50’s Computer Science for Business Professionals.

All of CS50’s videos are usually available on their YouTube channel and the videos have received over 22 Million views.



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Sustaining Wealth is Harder Than Getting Rich

https://ift.tt/2lLxjrN

The Forbes 400 list of the world’s richest people looks fairly similar at the top every year.

Buffet, Gates, Bezos, Bloomberg and the Walton family are at the top of the list in some order year in and year out (they’ve been joined by Mark Zuckerberg in recent years as well).

But this list isn’t as stable as it may appear.

Over 70% of those who made this list (or their heirs) lost their status in this rarified group between 1982 and 2014. Getting there is easier than staying there for most.

High-income earners have a similarly difficult time staying at the top.

Research shows over 50% of Americans will find themselves in the top 10% of earners for at least one year of their lives. More than 11% will find themselves in the top 1% of income-earners at some point. And close to 99% of those who make it into the top 1% of earners will find themselves on the outside looking in within a decade.

I was reminded of these studies this past week after reading two stories of financial folly. The first was Spencer Pratt, the reality TV star from the MTV show The Hills (I may or may not have watched this show at one point).

CNN Money profiled how Pratt and his wife, Heidi, made and then spent millions:

By 2008, they were crazy famous, ridiculously rich, and it seemed impossible that they ever wouldn’t be.

“We were more famous and [making] more money than Kim Kardashian,” Pratt says.

But as frosted tips fell out of style, so did Speidi. MTV canceled The Hills after six seasons, and the Pratts’ luxurious lifestyle quickly caught up to them. After years of splashing $30,000 on shopping sprees and ordering $4,000 bottles of wine at dinner, the now-married couple had officially blown through their $10 million fortune. Tabloid OK! Magazine announced the news in all caps, writing“HEIDI MONTAG & SPENCER PRATT ARE BROKE.”

“It’s really easy to spend millions of dollars if you’re not careful and you think it’s easy to keep making millions of dollars,” 34-year-old Pratt says. “The money was just coming so fast and so easy that my ego led me to believe that, ‘Oh, this is my life forever.’”

The second story was even more over the top. The Rolling Stone profile of Johnny Depp’s financial troubles was wild. Depp not only made over $650 million in his acting career and is now more or less bankrupt but he wants you to know he blew way more of his money than has been reported in the past:

There are a few things Depp insists TMG got wrong – for example, the $30,000 a month the Mandels claimed he spent on wine.

“It’s insulting to say that I spent $30,000 on wine,” says Depp. “Because it was far more.”

Depp says they got the Hunter S. Thompson cannon story wrong too. “By the way, it was not $3 million to shoot Hunter into the fucking sky,” says Depp. “It was $5 million.”

Both of these tales have been told before. The details may change but the story of someone making a boatload of dough only to see their lifestyle outstrip their riches is as old as money.

This situation will always occur for a number of reasons:

There is a huge difference between making lots of money and being rich. Income is not the same thing as wealth. Those who earn a high income give themselves a better chance of becoming rich but there is far more temptation to inject extreme lifestyle inflation into the mix when you earn a bigger paycheck.

Depp said, “Wine is not an investment if you drink it as soon as you buy it.”

Your net worth is the difference between what you own and what you owe. You can think of spending less than you make as what you own and spending more than you make as what you owe. The difference between how much you make and how much you spend is often a tug of war between ego and humility.

Anyone can act rich. Acting rich isn’t that hard. You know what’s hard? Acting like you’re not rich even when you make a decent chunk of change.

Nothing lasts forever. After the initial rush from new circumstances, such as making more money, people become accustomed to their new situation. Once people begin making more money they can get the feeling that those funds will continue to flow indefinitely.

Thinking like this is a good way to avoid giving yourself a backstop when the good times come to an end.

A good way to give yourself a margin of safety is to assume your current financial situation won’t last forever. Stress test the worst case scenario and if things continue to go well you’ve given yourself some breathing room.

Getting rich is not the same thing as staying rich. There are plenty of ways to get rich — start a business, save & invest wisely, inherit money, get lucky, etc. But staying rich involves just a few simple things — self-awareness, modesty, and the ability to delay gratification with a portion of your capital.

Money can corrupt even the best of intentions. No matter how much you make, you still have to save to build actual wealth.

Further Reading:
The Cost of Not Paying Attention

 



from A Wealth of Common Sense https://ift.tt/1cC8e8Z
via IFTTT

A lost secret: How to get kids to pay attention

https://ift.tt/2KbUSoA


Gelmy Tun Borgos helps in the kitchen making tortillas with her mother in their home in a small village in the Yucatan. Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR hide caption

toggle caption
Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR

Gelmy Tun Borgos helps in the kitchen making tortillas with her mother in their home in a small village in the Yucatan.

Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR

Fifteen years ago, psychologists Barbara Rogoff and Maricela Correa-Chavez ran a simple experiment. They wanted to see how well kids pay attention — even if they don't have to.

They would bring two kids, between the ages 5 to 11, into a room and have them sit at two tables.

Then they had a research assistant teach one of the kids how to assemble a toy.

The other kid was told to wait. Rogoff says they would tell the second child, "You can sit over here, and in a few minutes you'll have a turn to make this origami jumping mouse," — a different task altogether.

Rogoff and Correa-Chavez wanted to see what the waiting child did. Would she pay attention to the research assistant. Or did she goof off?

They ran this experiment on about 80 kids, with two different backgrounds: white, middle-class children from California and Maya children from Guatemala, whom she had been studying for years.

The difference was like night and day.

Many of the American kids slouched in their chairs, stared at the floor or looked around the room at the posters.

One little boy started making explosive noises, pretending a toy on the table was a bomb. "He was throwing his hands into the air and saying, 'It's going to explode!'" Rogoff says.

In contrast, the Maya children were more likely to pay attention. Some of them sat perfectly still in the chair, staring at the instructor. The Maya kids showed sustained attention about two-thirds of the time, Rogoff and colleagues concluded. The middle-class, American kids did so exactly half as often.

Why such different results? As we recently reported, Maya kids are encouraged very early on to pay attention to what their family is doing so they can learn how to do chores and work collaboratively with their family.

But Rogoff and other Maya researchers think there's more to the story. They think these indigenous children have something that many American kids have lost.

What is attention?

In the U.S., there's growing concern about the ability of children to pay attention. That, on average, the attention span of kids is declining.

But what if it's not attention that's the problem — but something that triggers attention.

Attention is a tricky beast. Unlike some brain processes, say vision or the ability to detect faces, there's not one key region in the brain that controls our ability to focus on one task and disregard distractions.

"Instead it appears [that] hundreds of different parts [of the brain] have to communicate and interact with each other when we pay attention," says neuroscientist Monica Rosenberg at Yale University.

And measuring how well a person's brain can execute this complex process has been thorny, say cognitive neuroscientists Mike Esterman and Joe DeGutis at the Boston Attention and Learning Lab.

For years, Esterman and DeGutis have been developing a standard test to measure how well people can focus — or at least that's what they thought they were measuring.

"So we bring people in a lab, like college students, and give them these tests to do on the computer, which count how many times their attention lapses," Esterman says.

For instance, a person is shown a series of images on the screen. Esterman tells the person to press a button every time a city pops up.

"So we show them a bunch of city images," he says. "And you're kind of going along, pressing the button, as city after city passes on the scene. Then all of the sudden there's a mountain scene, and the goal is to stop pressing."

If your brain wanders, you'll make a mistake and accidentally press the button, Esterman adds. The more mistakes you make like this, the worse your ability is to pay attention, the researchers thought.

But then a few years ago, they decided to tweak the experiment. Right before it began, they told the college kids:

"If you do better on the task, it would end sooner," Esterman says. "And you can get out of the lab sooner."

In other words, Esterman gave the volunteers more motivation to pay attention. The results were shocking.

"The extra motivation increased the person's ability to sustain attention by more than 50 percent, " Esterman says. "We were kind of blown away by the size of these effects."

The researchers could even see changes in how the brain worked when people were motivated. The circuitry that controls attention was more active throughout the entire experiment when participants were motivated to finish the test, DeGutis says. Whereas, without the motivation, this circuitry tended to flash on and off.

For some people, the motivation can be just as important as their innate ability to pay attention, Esterman says.

"If we don't measure how motivated a person is [while taking these tests], then we may not be measuring their true capacity to pay attention," he says.

And DeGutis agrees. "One of the things we've realized is that it's hard to separate motivation from sustained attention," he says. "If we're not looking at motivation, then we're really missing the boat in terms of attention."

'Of course she can go to the store by herself'

So maybe the Maya children are more attentive in the origami/toy experiment — not because they have better attention spans — but because they are more motivated to pay attention. Their parents have somehow motivated them to pay attention even without being told.

To see this Maya parenting firsthand, I traveled down to a tiny Maya village in Yucatan, Mexico, and visited the home of Maria Tun Burgos. Researchers have been studying her family and this village for years.

On a warm April afternoon, Tun Burgos is feeding her chickens in backyard. Her three daughters are outside with her, but they doing basically whatever they want.

The oldest daughter, Angela, age 12, is chasing a baby chick that's gotten out of the pen. The middle girl, Gelmy, age 9, is running in and out of the yard with neighborhood kids. Most of the time, no one is really sure where she is. And the littlest daughter, Alexa, who is 4 years old, has just climbed up a tree.

"Alone, without mama," the little daredevil declares.

Right away, I realize what these kids have that many American kids miss out on: an enormous amount of freedom. The freedom to largely choose what they do, where they go, whom they do it with. That means, they also have the freedom to control what they pay attention to.

Even the little 4-year-old has the freedom to leave the house by herself, her mother says.

Gelmy, 9, and sister Alexa, 4, climbing trees in the backyard of their family home in the Yucatan Peninsula. Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR hide caption

toggle caption
Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR

Gelmy, 9, and sister Alexa, 4, climbing trees in the backyard of their family home in the Yucatan Peninsula.

Adriana Zehbrauskas for NPR

"Of course she can go shopping," Tun Burgos says. "She can buy some eggs or tomatoes for us. She knows the way and how to stay out of traffic."

Now the kids aren't just playing around in the yard. They're still getting work done. They go to school. They do several after-school activities — and many, many chores. When I was with the family, the oldest girl did the dishes even though no one asked her to, and she helped take care of her little sisters.

But the kids, to a great extent, set their schedules and agendas, says Suzanne Gaskins, a psychologist at Northeastern Illinois University, who has studied the kids in this village for decades.

"Rather than having the mom set the goal — and then having to offer enticements and rewards to reach that goal — the child is setting the goal," Gaskins says. "Then the parents support that goal however they can."

The parents intentionally give their children this autonomy and freedom because they believe it's the best way to motivate kids, Gaskins says.

"The parents feel very strongly that every child knows best what they want," she says. "And that goals can be achieved only when a child wants it."

And so they will do chores when they want to be helpful for their family.

With this strategy, Maya children also learn how to manage their own attention, instead of always depending on adults to tell them what to pay attention to, says Barbara Rogoff, who is a professor at the University of California Santa Cruz.

"It may be the case that [some American] children give up control of their attention when it's always managed by an adult," she says.

Turns out these Maya moms are onto something. In fact, they are master motivators.

Motivating kids, the Maya way

Although neuroscientists are just beginning to understand what's happening in the brain while we pay attention, psychologists already have a pretty good understanding of what's needed to motivate kids.

Psychologist Edward Deci has been studying it for nearly 50 years at the University of Rochester. And what does he say is one of the most important ingredients for motivating kids?

"Autonomy," Deci says. "To do something with this full sense of willingness and choice."

Many studies have shown that when teachers foster autonomy, it stimulates kids' motivation to learn, tackle challenges and pay attention, Deci says.

But in the last few decades, some parts of our culture have turned in the other direction, he says. They've started taking autonomy away from kids — especially in some schools.

"One of the things we've been doing in the American school system is making it more and more controlling rather than supportive," Deci says.

And this lack of autonomy in school inhibits kids' ability to pay attention, he says.

"Oh without question it does," Deci says. "So all of the high stakes tests are having negative consequences on the motivation, the attention and the learning of our children."

Now, many parents in the U.S. can't go full-on Maya to motivate kids. It's often not practical — or safe — to give kids that much autonomy in many places, for instance. But there are things parents here can do, says cognitive psychologist Mike Esterman.

For starters, he says, ask your kid this question: 'What would you do if you didn't have to do anything else?' "

"Then you start to see what actually motivates them and what they want to engage their cognitive resources in when no one tells them what they have to to do," Esterman says.

Then create space in their schedule for this activity, he says.

"For my daughter, I've been thinking that this activity will be like her 'passion,' and it's the activity I should be fostering," he says.

Because when a kid has a passion, Esterman says, it's golden for the child. It's something that will bring them joy ... and hone their ability to pay attention.

Your Turn: What questions do you have about How To Raise A Human?

We've reported on kids and chores, grandma's role in evolution and stay-at-home dads. What else do you want to know? What questions do you have for our correspondents? Submit your question in the tool below. We will pick a few to answer on NPR.org at the end of the series.



from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

SandRidge Energy: A Bankruptcy Reorg With A Catalyst And 100% Upside

https://ift.tt/2tuAkBj

Over the course of the past few months, we’ve been looking at special situations within the energy space - specifically, bankruptcy reorganizations. Many of these smaller E&Ps have had a combination of over-leveraged balance sheets, poor rock characteristics, and inefficient operating structures. And though we recently invested in a few of these reorgs, we feel SandRidge (NYSE:SD) is the best-positioned among this opportunity set, with a hard catalyst to outperform in the near term. There are potential drivers in days/weeks that should alleviate some of the valuation gap that we and others perceive.

Opportunity

SandRidge year to date has lost roughly 25%, while XOP (oil & gas exploration and production ETF) is up roughly 6%. Furthermore, since coming public after emerging from bankruptcy, SandRidge is down roughly 35% - all during a significant oil price recovery period. There are a number of factors at play that have caused this price discrepancy, including limited sell-side coverage, bond holders becoming forced sellers, lack of inclusion in ETFs, and lack of trust from the investment community. So, while the company has had a checkered past, we believe the assets have become so neglected by the investment community that with conservative assumptions, the stock could be 100-150% higher on a sum-of-the parts basis.

While a sum-of-the-parts thesis is nice, we typically avoid situations where there is not a clear path on how the gap will eventually narrow. We feel most of that concern is mitigated with multiple parties engaging SandRidge in an attempt to gain control. Furthermore, at the end of the day, if there is a change of control event, it will likely be at a 30-50% premium to today’s valuation.

Key Points on SandRidge

  • On February, 6th 2018, MidStates Petroleum (NYSE:MPO) attempted to merge with SandRidge in an all-stock transaction, with a 60/40 split on ownership and SandRidge investors getting the lion’s share. At the time, MidStates Petroleum stated targeted annual synergies would be roughly $70 million, with significant overlapping Mississippi Lime (Miss Lime) acreage and infrastructure. We think this was an opportunistic merger proposal that significantly undervalued SandRidge’s asset position and didn’t account for the quality and depth of the company's Miss Lime assets. No merger was agreed upon, and it was rejected by SandRidge management.
  • Icahn made a comment in April about making an all-cash offer upon due diligence; Icahn’s average price is $17.16.
  • In the upcoming vote, Icahn is likely to get substantial influence, if not control of the BOD.
  • The North Park asset was acquired about three months before the absolute bottom in crude spot prices at $190 million; we think that asset alone is worth significantly more than that sum, likely $400 million+ in today’s oil environment.
  • The newly put in place management team seems adamant about selling the entire company and has signed confidential agreements with 17 potential bidders for the assets.
  • We think the Mississippi Lime assets are potentially worth more than the entire enterprise value of SandRidge based on transactions in the past few months.
  • Extremely attractive valuation, $725 million PDP PV-10 strip, $1,009 million PV-10 proved, versus roughly a $550 million market cap.

Quick Background

SandRidge is an E&P company that has had quite a dramatic history since its transformation in 2006 by former Chesapeake (NYSE:CHK) co-founder Tom Ward. At the company’s pinnacle, it had a market capitalization of over $11 billion; today, after bankruptcy reemergence, it has an enterprise value a tad over $500 million with no debt. Tom Ward (and family) was associated with significant capital allocation missteps as well as questionable activities at SandRidge during his tenure. Ward was ousted in an activist campaign by TPG Axon, Omega Advisors, and others in June 2013; he departed with a handsome severance package north of $90 million.

While the activist campaign made sense in theory, the over-leveraged capital structure and aggressive production growth prior to the cycle’s turn cemented SandRidge’s fate. The company filed bankruptcy in May of 2016, just a few months after oil had bottomed, with over $3.7 billion in debt. Emerging from bankruptcy in October of 2016, SandRidge shed the $3.7 billion in debt and approximately $300 million in annual interest payments. Today, its balance sheet is unlevered, with only a small working capital deficit and significant free cash flow from the legacy Mississippi Lime production.

Although SandRidge exited from bankruptcy with essentially a clean slate, it has not been a smooth ride since coming public. James Bennett (former SD CEO), who was put in to replace Ward, oversaw the bankruptcy of SandRidge and managed to retain the CEO title upon emergence from bankruptcy in 2016. Subsequently, his tenure after the bankruptcy was equally as painful to watch, with the stock falling over 30% in the face of a sharp rally in spot crude prices. Another highlight of Bennett’s tenure was the proposed acquisition of Bonanza Creek (NYSE:BCEI); prior to this proposal, the strategy from Bennett and the C suite had been to protect the balance sheet and utilize a methodical return on capital approach to drill and delineate SD’s large acreage holdings. This spur of the moment deal went in direct opposition to management’s laid-out strategy and offered no real synergies, and it diluted per share reserves, production, and cash flow. The strategy change drew the ire of Icahn and other shareholders who were instrumental in firing Bennett in February of this year. In our opinion, the only thing Bennett did right during his tenure was make a prescient acquisition within three months of the oil bottom in a privately negotiated transaction for a large contiguous acreage position in Colorado’s North Park basin.

Assets

North Park (122,000 net acres, 85% HBP)

(Source: SandRidge Shareholder Discussion Materials, 06/04/2018)

North Park was acquired on November 4th of 2015 from EE3 in a privately negotiated transaction for $190 million; management estimated at the time of purchase the well level returns were ~33% using the strip pricing. At that point in time, spot crude oil prices were below $40 and EE3 was likely under pressure from their private equity sponsor, Yorktown Energy Partners, to realize the value sooner rather than later. In fact, EE3 executives made a comment as early as 2013 that the asset was for sale “at the right price.”

The North Park Basin is concentrated in the Niobrara shale play, which has similar geologic characteristics to the DJ Basin Niobrara - with five stacked benches at depths of 5,500-9,000 feet. In fact, some recent well results are on par with some of the best DJ Basin wells. The acreage is largely concentrated in rural north central Colorado and is ideal for pad drilling, given the mostly contiguous 122k net acres. So far, SandRidge has delineated three Niobrara benchmarks (B, C, and D) as commercially viable. There are a few issues with the asset, including no takeaway infrastructure or processing facilities for natural gas; currently, all natural gas is being flared. Additionally, all oil production is transported using trucks, which costs ~$3.00 per barrel. A large portion of the acreage is under federal lease hold positions, and there are required periods of delay associated with regulatory stipulations and infrastructure build-out that will impact new drilling completion and timing. Due to its large infrastructure needs, management has stated that the North Park Basin is ideal for a JV partnership. We believe this is an asset that a larger-scaled E&P could acquire and then develop the needed infrastructure to lower per barrel transportation costs as well as put pipe in place to realize NGL and gas sales.

The North Park Basin is currently producing, at the end of Q1, 2,325 Bopd (management guided for a Q3 ‘18 exit rate of ~4,000 Bopd) when acquired; this asset was producing only roughly 850 Bopd, given a 15% gas weight. On top of this, there is some much-needed infrastructure being put in place with a small-scale GTL processing facility under contract at the Big Horn tank battery. This facility will be built and operated at no cost to SandRidge; the company, in turn, will share in the liquids recovery from this processing. Initially, this facility will process ~500 Mcf per day upon installation in 2019. Furthermore, the company may evaluate additional pipeline takeaway and contemplate potential future expansions to the GTL facilities.

Another asset, we think, that is very comparable to North Park is the DJ Basin (Wattenburg field) - the core of which is located about 150 miles southeast of the North Park basin. Reservoir characteristics of the Niobrara in the North Park Basin are similar to those of the Niobrara in the DJ Basin to the east of North Park, with the Niobrara consisting of multiple stratigraphic benches. On a per acre value, a recent top-tier DJ Basin deal was made by SRC Energy, buying 30,000 acres at $17,000 per acre from Noble, whereas average acreage values for the DJ Basin are more in line around $12,000/acre. We think a conservative $4,000-5,000 per acre (third-party source) for a contiguous land block in the North Park basin is reasonable; that would put the current valuation at roughly $550 million.

NW STACK (72,500 net acres, 52% HBP)

SandRidge owns 72,500 net acres in the NW STACK, while outside of the core STACK window; the NW STACK has recently been in greater focus as adjacent operators continue to delineate the play with some success. The Meramec and Osage formations are the primary targets in the NW STACK, and are currently being targeted using horizontal well technology in Garfield, Major, Dewey, and Woodward Counties. In February 2017, SandRidge added additional bolt-on acreage: a deal for 13,000 net acres in Woodward County, Oklahoma, for approximately $47.8 million in cash, as well as interests in four wells previously drilled on the acreage. We think the southern half of SandRidge’s NW STACK acreage can generate high returns on average (management states >50% IRRs), while much of it is still prospective and requires further delineation. Estimated D&C costs in the NW STACK run roughly $4.4 million and $6.5 million per well, respectively, for 5K and 10K ft laterals. On average, the wells are decent, considering the lower D&C costs in the basin; the most recent four wells had IP 30’s of 675 Boe/d (76% oil).

Thus far, SandRidge has focused on the Meramec formation, which has a higher oil weight than the Osage formation. While still commercially viable, the Osage is typically producing about 40-50% oil, versus the Meramec, which on average is producing around 70%+ oil.

While in this delineation stage, SandRidge executed an attractive drilling participation agreement in Q3 2017 for $200 million, which is divided into two separate $100 million tranches. While expensive, the Drillco serves three purposes: it helps hold additional acreage by production, adds low-cost reserves, and keeps capital commitments low while SandRidge utilizes the majority of its capex on the North Park Basin development. Furthermore, the Drillco agreement helps de-risk some of the prospective NW STACK, improving the technical knowledge of the formation for future higher net working interest drilling locations.

The drilling participation agreement is as follows:

(Source: 2017 10-K)

Mississippi Lime (360,000 net acres, 95% HBP)

The Miss Lime formation is an expansive carbonate hydrocarbon system located on the Anadarko Shelf in northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas, and is a target for exploration and development within the Mid-Continent. SandRidge alone, over the past decade, has put billions into drilling and completions as well as significant saltwater disposal systems and electrical infrastructure in the basin. There is significant cash flow coming off this asset, with over 1,100+ operated wells. Due to some delays in the North Park capital program, management has decided to shift more capital to the Miss Lime and drill four wells, spending about $11 million in D&C in 2018.

While it is challenging to value this vast acreage position in the Mississippi Lime, we think there is significant hidden value in the infrastructure assets to a strategic buyer like MPO. SandRidge has spent considerable capital on over 1,250 miles of power lines, six substations, two micro grids, 1,095 miles of SWD infrastructure, and 136 active disposal wells. We believe this is the very reason that MPO put combined company synergies to be around $70 million per annum. Since the company has just entered into a recent deal to sells its interest in the NW STACK, we think that almost all of those synergy benefits were directly attributable to the Miss Lime. One could make an argument for a $5-10 million haircut for SG&A and other overall overhead synergies, thus putting the combined synergy value on only the Miss Lime to be ~$60-65 million. We think a strategic buyer would easily pay 7x the synergy amount ($440 million), particularly because of the hundreds of millions of dollars SandRidge has invested in infrastructure assets in the Miss Lime, as well as the significant cash flow generation from the existing 1,100+ operating wells. Given that roughly 80% of SandRidge’s total production is coming from the Miss Lime, this asset generates the majority of the $171 million in forward adj. EBTIDA. On almost any proportional multiple of EBITDA, one would also arrive at a similar $400-550 million valuation.

On a recent transaction basis, Tom Ward’s new entity, BCE-Mach LLC, acquired 155,000 net acres (02/07/2018) as part of a three-way sale of 238,000 net acres for $500 million from Chesapeake. While individual transaction details were not released, based on the information we have, it appears it was done at roughly $2,100 per acre, or $21,739 per Boe/d in total. We estimate SD’s Miss Lime acreage should do around 25,000 Boe/d (Q1 exit rate of ~28,000 Boe/d) for FY ’18 on average; so on a production-adjusted basis, this puts the value around $543 million, or the entire market value of SandRidge (and this is not including a valuation for the additional acres.) If one was to give credit for the remaining 122,000 additional net acres owned by SandRidge at a value of ~$400/acre, that would be an incremental $49 million, or ~$600 million in total, just for the Mississippi Lime position.

This transaction is about as apples-to-apples as it gets; first, the Chesapeake acreage sold directly overlaps with the core Miss Lime position and infrastructure of SandRidge in the Woods and Alfalfa counties (see below), as well as the adjacent counties of Grant, Garfield, Harper, Barber, and Sumner. Furthermore, the Chesapeake assets had in place significant saltwater disposal assets as well as some in-place electrical infrastructure, very similar to SandRidge. Tom Ward, the former long-time CEO of SandRidge, is probably the most familiar with these assets, and if SandRidge were to pursue an outright sale of the Miss Lime position, we think this would attract significant interest from Ward’s investment vehicle.

(Source: SandRidge 02/22/2018 Investor Presentation)

Permian Basin

The Permian Basin represents roughly 3.6% of total production in Q1 ’18, that is SandRidge’s proportional share of its 25% ownership stake in the SandRidge Permian trust assets listed on the NYSE under PER. This stub represents an approximate market value of roughly $32.25 million.

Comps

Valuation

Conclusion

On a sum-of-the-parts basis, we think this is one of the most compelling bankruptcy reorgs with a catalyst. SandRidge acquired the North Park asset in the depths of the oil crisis for $190 million, which we believe was a cheap price based on the conversations we’ve had with experts in the field. While there are certainly some issues with the asset, we think the price more than discounts those concerns. In light of all these variables, we think that the North Park asset alone is worth between $350 million and $500 million.

The NW STACK acreage is perhaps a little more difficult to value, given it is more prospective and has yet to be fully delineated. We believe that a conservative valuation would put these 72.5k net acres in the valuation range of $175-275 million; this is a fairly wide range, but we think this asset has the potential to deliver substantial IRRs at the well level. Also keep in mind that a large part of the heavy lifting will be done utilizing the Drillco agreement. This should help SandRidge by increase its technical ability for future well design improvements.

We think the Mississippi Lime assets represent the most undervalued asset in the portfolio. On pretty much any metric, the Miss Lime screens absurdly cheap - on an adjacent transaction basis, on an EBITDA multiple/FCF basis, or on a per acre valuation basis (including the infrastructure assets). Part of the reason these asset are able to generate decent returns at the current strip is due to the billions invested prior to bankruptcy in infrastructure and D&C. This large existing base of legacy wells generates significant cash flow that is currently being reinvested into the NW STACK and North Park, which will, over time, increase SandRidge’s exposure to higher-margin oil production.

This is a rare opportunity where a recent bankruptcy, a lack of sell-side coverage, significantly lower liquidity, and bondholder liquidations have put structural pressure on the shares that has obfuscated the true value of the combined assets. While Icahn and MPO have been in heated negotiations, one thing has become very clear to us: all these individual parties are fighting over the same thing - the tremendous valuation disparity that exists between the individual assets and what a private buyer or strategic would pay. Overall, we think an investor is paying ~40-50 cents on the dollar for assets that are likely to get a bid significantly higher within weeks.

Risks

  • Crude prices fall further.
  • Icahn (or other entity) takes most of the economics of the undervalued assets away from minority shareholders.
  • Potential capital destructive deals that dilutes SandRidge’s depressed multiple.
  • A focus on production growth at any cost over return on investment approach.

Disclaimer: This report is intended for informational purposes only and you, the reader, should not make any financial, investment, or trading decisions based upon the author's commentary. Although the information set forth above has been obtained or derived from sources believed to be reliable, the author does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information's accuracy or completeness, nor does the author recommend that the above information serve as the basis of any investment decision. Before investing in a security, readers should carefully consider their financial positions and risk tolerances to determine if such a stock selection is appropriate.

At any time, the author of this report may trade in or out of any securities that are mentioned in the report as long or short positions in his own personal portfolio or in client portfolios that he manages without disclosing this information. At the time this report was published, the author had a long position in SD either in his personal account or in accounts that he managed for others.

Disclosure: I am/we are long SD.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.



from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks https://ift.tt/2a97jA2
via IFTTT

America’s Millennials Are Waking Up to a Grim Financial Future

https://ift.tt/2IaAuCc


Lately I’ve been losing track of how old everyone is. Friends, co-workers and family members are resisting middle age with vigorous exercise, careful diets and regular doctor visits. Even when 50-year-olds look like they’re 50, they often dress or party as if they’re still in their twenties. 

Our capacity to fetishize youth never ceases to amaze. But while older Americans definitely want to look like younger folks, they certainly don’t want their finances. That’s because the wealth gap between generations keeps widening, and their children’s future is beginning to look ugly.

Just two years ago, the median American born in the 1980s—the cradle of millennials—had family wealth that was 34 percent below what earlier generations held at the same age, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reported last month. And all the data show it’s probably going to get worse.

As affluent baby boomers thank years of soaring markets for their paid-off mortgages and plump portfolios, millennials and the next cohort, Generation Z, are weighed down by student debt and stagnant wages. They can only contribute the bare minimum to their retirement plans and struggle to find affordable homes within commuting distance of their jobs. 

Of course, it’s perfectly normal for people just starting out to have less in the bank. However, the St. Louis Fed warned that, even when taking that into account, young Americans are slipping dangerously behind. For a time, Generation X was also losing out, thanks to the 2008 financial crisis. But its members managed to make up most of the shortfall in the years since, tapping into the longest economic expansion in decades.

For some reason that period of tremendous growth barely helped millennials. The St. Louis Fed called this anomaly “a missed opportunity because asset appreciation is unlikely to be as rapid in the near future.” That’s pretty bad news for twenty and thirtysomethings who may have been hoping to catch up. But it gets worse.

By 2034, Social Security won’t be able to pay out full benefits, the program’s trustees estimated this month. Any solution that would rectify its finances will probably require more taxes and more benefit cuts—all coming out of the pockets of younger workers. Boomers, who are exiting the workforce in droves, will already be comfortably seated when the music stops, or out of the picture.

“We turned the economy into a miserable hellscape and you’re just going to have to deal with it.”

Fixing Social Security is hardly the only issue where younger Americans have different priorities than their elders. U.S. President Donald Trump was elected on the votes of older Americans favoring tax cuts and less government, while young voters flocked to Senator Bernie Sanders, who supports rebuilding social programs and establishing national healthcare.  

Alicia Munnell, the director of Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, recently lamented that government inaction on Social Security means “that most baby boomers have escaped completely from contributing to a solution.” This month, she offered some depressing advice to younger Americans about what they can do to make up the difference: Work longer.

The reaction to her earnest advice was rage.

“Wait, this is the good news?” read one indignant post on Twitter, echoing many others. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie called it “a great example of ‘we turned the economy into a miserable hellscape and you’re just going to have to deal with it.’” 

Ouch. But Munnell assured young people that they don’t need to cancel their retirements entirely. “In fact, my research shows that the vast majority of millennials will be fine if they work to age 70,” she wrote for Politico. (Small solace given that life expectancy for Americans recently took a turn for the worse.)

Still, Munnell has a point. Across a generational time-frame, people are still living much longer than their parents. As my colleague Peter Coy recently pointed out, a man who is “chronologically” 65 is actually more like a 55-year-old from the perspective of 1957. With the extra years, a longer career doesn’t necessarily mean a shorter retirement.

Retirement-age Americans are already working in record numbers. Whether by choice or necessity, because of boredom or fear, a full third of those between 65 and 69 were in the workforce in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, along with 19 percent of those aged 70 to 74—together almost double the number 30 years ago. 

Nevertheless, the retirement advice of “just work longer” can sound pretty tone deaf to younger ears, especially when the old American promises—of advancement, financial security and home ownership for everyone who works hard—have faded into myth. 

What about the booming economy of 2018? Won’t that help smooth the path for young savers? Perhaps, but Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists recently said the current pace of the U.S. economy is “probably as good as it gets.” That can only make young Americans more furious about the “missed opportunity” mentioned by the St. Louis Fed.

Paychecks aren’t reflecting the improving economy. Hourly wages were unchanged in May from a year earlier. And according to a Fed survey, four in 10 Americans said it would be tough to come up with $400 for an emergency expense. The same 2017 survey found 27 percent skipping medical treatments because they can’t afford them. Another poll this month reaffirmed the inability of many Americans to save any money at all.

So work longer? First you have to live longer, and that’s not guaranteed.

Wide swaths of the country are getting sicker and dying younger than just a few years ago, with a widening health gap between educated, affluent Americans and everyone else. Alcohol abuse and obesity, upticks in suicide and an epidemic of drug overdoses have all played a role in an ominous milestone: Year-over-year declines in American life expectancy while the rest of the world lives ever-longer.

Perhaps it’s a statistical blip. If not, the U.S. faces an almost dystopian future—one of hyper class-stratification in which the few are rich and living longer while the many postpone retirement, struggle to get by and ultimately die younger.

There is some good news for younger generations, though. As they focus on the hand they’ve been dealt, they will find there is one good card to play, one that may allow them to address the myriad problems they face: numbers. 

It’s no secret the widening gap in financial security is shadowed by a similar gap in politics, setting up the potential for generational warfare at the ballot box in coming elections.

The outcome of the 2018 midterms may largely come down to whether left-leaning millennials and Gen-Xers, who make up a majority of eligible U.S. voters, show up. In recent elections, these two demographics voted at much lower rates than previous generations at the same ages, according to the Pew Research Center. Unless that changes, wealthier, right-leaning baby boomers and the remaining members of the so-called Silent Generation will once again swamp them at the polls.

Regardless of turnout, or even who wins, academics predict a growing animus between young and old to match the polarized party politics currently roiling the nation.

“I think you’re going to see growing conflict,” said Susan MacManus, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of South Florida. One sign that “this huge generation is awakening to things is that we have seen record levels of younger candidates stepping up to the plate and running for office at every level,” she said.

And she said these young people, just now realizing how bad their prospects are financially, are increasingly angry.



    from Hacker News https://ift.tt/YV9WJO
    via IFTTT