yesteryear

Shop Local this Christmas

yesteryear — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:37:22 -0800

Why Shop Local? Local businesses return 80% of each dollar to the community: Sylvia Wyant.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2008/09/why-shop-local-local-businesses-r...
“The Chains That Bind” via Sylvia Wyant, from the Spring 2006 issue.

Shopping local and independent sounds nice, but we Americans like to save a buck. We like convenience. And, judging from the proliferation of big box chains, we like consistency.

So why go out of our way to ‘shop-local-first’? It goes like this: when you spend your dollars at an independent, local business, you keep more money in your hometown-supporting your community’s social services, schools, your public library and local non-profits. How so? Locally-owned businesses return about 80% of each dollar to their community. And each dollar spent at a local business will return up to five times that amount within your community through city taxes, employees’ wages, and purchases of materials, supplies and services at other independent businesses.

Chains and franchises, on the other hand, contribute roughly 40%, and as little as 20% of sales back to your community. And many big boxes, such as Walmart or Home Depot, are given tax-incentives by local governments-costing you far more than the discounted price you think you’re paying.

Ever wonder why you can’t find a particular local, independent publication in the national bookstores? Well, most national chains like the look of “sameness” from one store to the next. They can’t have their ear to the ground and their roots in the community, in the same way as mom n’pop shops. So the choice is made not to place these different, local publications in their stores [this applies even to ‘good’ chains, such as Whole Foods or Wild Oats].

Why does this matter? Independent, local publications are the backbone of a healthy democracy. This is particularly important when a big national company whose main goal is to serve its shareholders owns the “local” newspaper.

When you make your purchases at independent, businesses you’re supporting people and services in your community, not corporations that all-toooften (but not always, thankfully) exploit natural resources and people for the good of the bottomline and their shareholders.

Now, most of us make purchases at a national store of some sort. But if we just make most of our purchases from businesses that are local, if we make the conscious decision to support our own community, more good things will happen to the town where we live. And where we live is pretty important.

Why? I like where I live. It has a character and a uniqueness that tourists swarm to because guess what? They come here for the unique, independent businesses-not the conventional stores they could find in any indoor mall. The storefronts are unique, the coffee shops are different, and the merchandise is as varied as the locals who own and stock them. Independent businesses house independent minds that make different choices based on their creative, ear-to-the-ground mindset. And it is these choices that make a community interesting, diverse and attractive.

Sylvia L. Wyant is Executive Director of the Boulder Independent Business Alliance-and a writer, professor, artist and psychotherapist!

Real US Currency Vs. Fake US Currency

yesteryear — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:47:08 -0700

Real US Currency Vs. Fake US Currency

yesteryear — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:43:08 -0700

um

yesteryear — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:45:43 -0700

yeah

Real impact of tax cuts/increases according to candidate plans

yesteryear — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:31:18 -0700

The graph above shows the increase or decrease in tax under each candidate's proposed plan. Percent change was used to show the actual impact, and was calculated using the bottom rung of each tax bracket (a $10k annual income was used for the $19k and under category). I have also included the change in dollars in the graph at the bottom of this blog entry.

When we look at the raw and percent change according to each candidate's tax proposals, it's clear that McCain's tax plan would give all Americans a tax cut, while Obama's would raise taxes on the very highest income groups, and and cut taxes for those in the lower brackets. However, in McCain's plan, the largest cuts will go to those with the highest incomes - and I mean HIGH. In fact, it's not until your income reaches a base of $603K that you would see McCain cutting your taxes and Obama raising them (to any real degree). That's right - everyone making under $603K/year, under both plans, would either see a miniscule increase in tax, or a cut, under both candidates plans.

At the bottom of the scale there are also large differences. Obama gives the largest percentage cuts to those with the lowest incomes, while McCain's plan follows the logic "The less you make, the less you get back".

As the median income in the US is currently $51,000/year, the average American would see a greater impact to his or her tax under Obama's plan - where, on average, tax bills would be cut to a greater degree than under McCain's plan.

Demographic and other data for states represented in presidential election

yesteryear — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:55:21 -0700

I'm working from home on a demographic project for work so I thought I'd throw together some graphs on the four states represented in this year's presidential election, and compare them to US stats. I thought it might shed some light on how the candidates previous experience in their home states could be applied at the national level - and whether their home states are representative of the nation as a whole.

Overall I was surprised by how similar the states were for the most part, however there were some major differences - but nothing eye-opening.

In terms of general population and age/gender it's not surprising that Arizona has seen the most population growth between 2000 and 2006 - it's one of the states that saw ton of homebuilding during the boom years. It's also not surprising that Alaska has the lowest percentage of women - all of those jokes about it being a great place to meet a man are right, I guess! What is surprising is the low percentage of persons over 65 living in Alaska. I have no idea why this number is so abnormally low - it could be that most people leave Alaska for other states when they are of college age or out of college (presumably to find a job as options there are limited). This would mean that retired folks and the elderly would probably need to leave the state to be near their children and other family members. I would say it might have to do with the cold climate in Alaska but Delaware actually has a higher percentage of persons over 65 in this comparison - even above the US average.

In terms of race, nothing surprising here: Arizona has a larger share of hispanic or latino residents; Alaska has more native americans and alaskan natives, and both Alaska and Arizona far smaller share of african-americans than the other states and the US average. Delaware and Illinois have larger shares of African-Americans, which is typical in states that have large urban centers.

In terms of other demographic characteristics, there were some obvious things: Arizona has a larger share of foreign-born and non-english speaking residents (Mexico); Delaware and Illinois have higher rates of Bachelors Degrees (typical in states with large urban centers). And there were some not so obvious things: Alaska has a higher rate of high school graduation; Arizona has a larger share of people under the poverty line; Delaware has a larger share of women than the national average; Delaware has the highest rate of homeownership, and Illinois comes in second to Arizona in both foreign-born residents and non-english speaking residents.

So overall it's interesting to see that Arizona and Alaska both have outliers in a number of categories, and that Delaware and Illinois are pretty damn average. If I were going to be partisan for a moment, I might argue that Delaware and Illinois being more representative of the US averages point to a better grasp of the average American's life... but I'll stop there.

yesteryear's tribe discovered

yesteryear — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:45:55 -0700

On being an 86 year old Sugar Network User

yesteryear — Wed, 28 May 2008 06:58:47 -0700

When I was in my 20s the closest thing we had to an on-line community was getting to know the other women in line for chocolate rations during WWII. Sometimes we'd exchange telephone numbers and plan to meet at the dance hall for a Jitterbug competition, or trade canned fruit recipes that went well with tinned beef (fresh fruit and meat was hard to come by in those days).

As time went on, and our great nation entered the 1950s, the women of my generation scrambled to get married, buy quickly constructed homes in generic subdivisions, and open lines of credit at the local radio and television shop so we could stay up until 9:30pm to see the last broadcast on one of the 3 networks before the flag began to wave and the national anthem played as the picture on the screen got smaller and smaller, collapsing into itself like a black hole and eventually going dim.

These were peaceful, bucolic days... before cell phones, and home video game systems, and sectional couches with cup holders. To keep up with what was happening in pop culture we had to read Life magazine, or leave the house to go see a movie at the theater. Life truly was was simpler then.

Well, as an 86 year old woman it's getting harder and harder for me to leave the house to go see a movie, and Life magazine went under almost 20 years ago now. Thank goodness for grocery delivery or I'd probably have had to quit smoking 10 years ago.

In closing, I'd like to give a great big "Thank you" to Sugar Inc., for allowing this crazy old woman to re-insert herself into the goings-on of the world. I'd also like to thank my grandson for hooking up the Web TV system which allows me to flip back and forth between HSN and Sugar 30,000 times a day.

Warmest regards,

Yesteryear