How Convenient is Convenience

       As a county that loves convenience, where do we draw the line? Google is starting to experiment with online shopping for groceries, and offering same-day delivery. While this may be a great deal to offer to the elderly or the handicapped, is it really necessary? We live in a world that allows us to buy things online from the comfort of our own house. Soon groceries could be delivered, for a fee of course, right to your home on the same day you order them.
       As someone that purchases most of the things I want from Amazon, I'm not necessarily opposed to this. And I certainly don't enjoy shopping on Black Friday. But this is another reason not to leave my house. A service such as this is completely optional, but it will be difficult for some to not give in and use it. At the moment this service is located in San Francisco, but knowing Google, they'll expand as much as they can if this becomes successful.
      This is certainly an interesting idea, although certain local grocers offer a similar service already (such as ordering groceries by phone), but the main concern comes from the nation's "we want it now" mentality, and now we don't even want to leave our house to get it.

-Mark Abrams
Liedtke, M. (2013). Google to deliver goods quickly to online shoppers. Associated Press,

Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/google-deliver-goods-quickly-online-shoppers-213009918--finance.html

How Would a Second Korean War Affect American Consumption?

Well, based on previous American military conflictsnegatively… in every single category studied. An Institute for Economics and Peace report, published in early 2012, indicatedthat the majority of American military conflicts lead to an increase in publicdebt and levels of taxation, a decrease in consumption and investments as apercentage of GDP, and an increase in inflation, either during or afterwards,as a direct result.  Why do I bring upthe effects of war on American consumption? Because the recent actions of North Korea could POTENTIALLY cause theKorean War to go ‘hot’ again, and in the process drag the United States intoanother drawn out war.  In the past monthalone North Korea has threatened to level Washington D.C. with a pre-emptiveNUCLEAR strike, canceled the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, and justyesterday they cut the last military hotline with South Korea.  North Korea has threatened the United Statesand our allies in the past, but this time it may be different, and regardlessof what one may think; whether it be posturing or actually gearing up for war,North Korea’s 9,000,000 man, nuclear weapon equipped military is not somethingto simply ignore.  IF North Korea’s toughtalk actually leads to action and war does break out, American consumption, andtherefore the American economy as a whole could suffer a serious blow.  I say this because America’s economy is just beginningto actually recover from the effects of the 2008 recession, and is stillconsidered fragile due to higher than average unemployment, rising inflation,and government debt being at an all-time high. The Institute for Economics and Peace report I mentioned earlier (EconomicConsequences of War on the US Economy) stated that the United States has paidfor military conflicts in three different ways since World War II; increasing thedebt, raising taxes, or printing more money to pay for it (increasing inflation).
 Any one of these methods would cause greatharm to the American economy’s recovery, and because a military conflict inKorea would be much larger than our recent conflicts in the Middle East, andkeep in mind we’ve spent $3.1 trillion in the Middle East since 2001, it wouldalso be much, much more expensive, and therefore far more dangerous to ourcountry’s financial stability.  So whatdo you think?  Think the Korean War willheat up again?  And if so, what effects do you think it will have on the US economy?

          -          Zach Briscoe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/economic-consequences-of-_b_1294430.html

Targeting Future Majorities

A few years ago, it might seem that advertising in America was based on a few simple, if somewhat racially biased truths.   One of these truths was that the white working male was the primary demographic for many marketing campaigns.   Everyone has seen the images of young girls swooning over a boy because of a product, but it was until recently, almost always predicated toward a certain ethnicity.   In 2012, however there are a few challenges facing advertisement firms which are new and striking.   None more so that the realization that at some time in the future, the working white male may not be the largest market share.

Ethnic commercials have long existed, up until the 1970's it was common for ad men to use negative stereotypes of minorities to promote their products.  This was because the majority of buying America was white and comfortable with these ethnic stances.   The Frito Bandito, for example, was a colorful character who stole Frito's chips.   Well he was also a statement on how advertisers thought Caucasians envisioned this particular minority.   "Lucky", from Lucky Charms could be mostly harmless, but still has undertones of ethnic derisiveness.   Jello even had an animated commercial in the 1960's that featured an Asian child that could not say "Jello" correctly.   Since the '70's there are many more commercials targeting ethnic groups for inclusion rather than division.   Ethnic advertisements in the new millennium have taken the issue of race much more positively in many cases.   Alternate language ads and increased diversity within advertisements is seen as a respectful way to market toward another ethnic group, and many firms have embraced this.

So what happens when the market predicts a large scale shift?   According to the last census over 40 million Americans were immigrants with a 2.4 million increase from 2007 alone.  With immigrants and in fact Hispanics topping the numbers lists, there is a good chance that one day advertising will look very different from how it does today.   73% of  Hispanics in 2012 expected to earn more in 2013 than the previous year as well.   This means there is an economic shift taking place, and some ad firms are trying to capitalize on this.   

Cereals such as Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Lucky Charms are both trying to aggressively target young Hispanic children in a marketing ploy to "get them young" as it were.   Heavy dispersal of commercial ads on Spanish-speaking networks during children's programs  is on the rise, while for non or white ethnic stations, these ads have actually decreased.   The insidious nature of this marketing scheme is that it plays not just on the fact that Spanish-speaking families are making more money, but also on the fact that childhood obesity is much more prevalent in Hispanic communities.   Out of the 11 cereal brands which have increased exposure to Hispanics, is it possible that there is some innocuous reason that they would preform this way?   Perhaps, but money is often the only motivator a company needs and this business plan certainly seems aimed to provide that.

Overall, American advertising firms have done well in offering the olive branch to those of another ethnicity, however discrepancies still exist.   When the next group of ad men come into their offices, will they integrate these "others" or will they target them? For the foreseeable future it seems that as minorities become majorities there will be big money for those who start early.

Original Article

PEW research statistics

Newspapers: A Dying Form of Mass Culture

Newspapers have been an important part of American mass culture for a very long time. Due to technology however, they are simply becoming a thing of the past. People are opting to find news stories using other mediums such as the internet or television and therefore not purchasing actual newspapers.  This is sending many newspapers out of business. Within Lizbeth Cohen’s article Encountering Mass Culture at the Grass Roots, newspapers are mentioned only a couple of times and with nowhere near the amount of detail pertaining to the large effect  other forms of mass culture (movie theatres and radio) had on working class people. I think the recognition within this one article illustrates the way most people now view newspapers as unimportant.  Having worked for The Cincinnati Enquirer for 10 years, I feel somewhat differently. I believe that newspapers are important tools for people to utilize, especially at the “grassroots” level. According to Ricardo Rigodon’s article Newspapers Might Become a Thing of the Past, "In a statistic there are 22% of adults overall with no access to the internet medium with only 42% of those being over 65+ years old. This is taking away a form of news for these people that don't have access to this media.” Working in a union, I used to receive a monthly newspaper that kept me informed on many issues that were on-going within the Teamsters union, as well as provide information on certain politicians and their views and actions toward organized labor. This was information that I would not find in mainstream media. Due to the rising cost of producing the newspaper, they eventually stopped publishing it and I was not as informed and educated on matters that were/could be very important to my trade. I think there are a lot of people who are going to be negatively affected by a “lack” of consumerism in this case. Newspapers promote reading, research, and information. Despite the low cost of purchasing a newspaper, younger generations are going to miss out on the vast wealth of knowledge that they can supply. While there is still online access to newspapers, I do not feel that it is exactly the same as picking up a newspaper and actually flipping through the pages to find stories on a local and/or global level that interest people. What other effects do you think Americans consuming habits have on the newspaper industry? Do you think these trends will have the same type of large impact on other forms of mass culture (media)?

http://techfate.blogspot.com/2013/02/newspapers-might-become-thing-of-past.html

Obsolete Proof Purchasing

                                                                                                                                                                                    

The chapter “Annual model Change” from the Giles Slader book “Made to Break” had me thinking a lot about how we spend our money and what products we can buy that do not fall prey to the annual model change scenario. One of the items that I own that has proven itself over and over again as a safe investment, a fun past time, and a proven form of self-defense… firearms. After the Sandy Hook incident assault styled rifles (a rifle has to be select fire to be deemed an “assault rifle”) that had normally cost about six hundred dollars soar to over twelve hundred in some cases. Since then the price of these weapons had come back down a little bit and continue to do so, but with the political environment the way it is and the media utilizing scare tactics the market for firearms is prone to these spikes for fear of unconstitutional legislation. Not only are firearms prone to gaining large value but also very rarely do they lose any value, and if they do it is because of misuse or poor maintenance. Also stocking ammunition is a safe bet for financial stability, family security, or incase the world ends and you are forced to defend your house from a hoard of radioactive cannibals (entirely possible). Depending on what kind of gun you buy it can be more prone to randomly gaining value more than others. In our current political climate the emphasis on the demonization of military style rifles and accessories that allow higher magazine capacities or simulated automatic firing (slidefire stocks). So the more money and the more military stylings that are incorporated into the weapon the more money you stand to make. Guns that potentially have the least gain are rifles that are not semi-automatic or fed with detachable box magazines, also pump action or breakdown shotguns as well as revolvers. I don’t mean to say that these guns are any less interesting or useful I just say they are not as marketable as the guns that the media and our government demonize which creates the potential for people to be scared into buying them. But whatever the case the amount of money that you invest in firearms and firearm accessories you will be able to make money or recuperate all of the money that you spent on said items. I have six hundred dollars invested in my .45 caliber pistol and I was offered 800 dollars for it at the range by some guy in the lane next to me, it would have been a 33% profit but I like my gun more than 800 dollars. The point is cars lose value the minute that you drive off the lot, electronics have a matter of months before they lose half of their value, the only tangible commodity that gains value at the rate of firearms would be food. I like every other guy likes food but how much fun can it be to collect food and you cant defend yourself with food in most practical situations. While food fails to have the allure of firearms it can provide what may turn out to be prove as essential financial security for your family, or necessary caloric intake in the event of an emergency.

Guns and food are the only two things I could think of that are financially safe to collect or stockpile in the hopes of making money or having a fall back plan in these financially tough times. So the question that I pose to our bloggers and classmates is this. What items do you believe have immunity to Sladers scheduled obsolescence?

Will The Automotive Assembly Line Ever Be Truly Reinvented?

As Jamie Page Deaton points out in a recent article I read, “What's striking about modern automotive production lines is that they haven't changed all that much from the basic Ford system from so long ago.”   To further elaborate on her statement she means Henry Ford’s concept of having an automobile travel down a line and have each worker perform a specific task along the line is still the law of the land in regards to automotive production.  Minor changes like the implementation of robots to perform certain tasks have occurred to help further lower production costs, but the line has been largely unchanged.  In my opinion, the two largest innovations to the automotive production line have been the use of cleaner, safer methods in assembly, and car manufacturers’ ability to add a level of customization to each individual vehicle.  One thing Alfred P. Sloan knew consumers wanted was choices, and modern car manufactures agree.  Proof of this is in multiple model production, color selection, trim packaging and/or accessories.  This has all been achieved while making the production line a cleaner, safer place.  For instance, the article attached discusses a Subaru plant in Lafayette, Indiana that recycles 99.8% of the plant’s waste; a number that would have been seen as unachievable in Henry Ford and Alfred P. Sloan’s day.

  But does cleaner production, the use of modern technologies, and more consumer choices mean innovation?  In short, no, and in my opinion automotive production lines will probably never undergo a drastic change.  Why? It’s been over 100 years since Henry Ford introduced his interpretation of the automotive assembly line and relatively little has changed, even as technology has rapidly advanced.  But what does the future hold?  Will we see a revolution in the automotive assembly line in our lifetime, or just minor changes here and there?  And if only minor changes, what does this say about automotive production?  Has it peaked?  Is the current automotive assembly line the apex of efficient automotive production?

- Zach Briscoe

Deaton, Jamie Page.  "How Automotive Production Lines Work"  11 May 2009.  HowStuffWorks.com. <http://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/auto-manufacturing/automotive-production-line.htm>  19 March 2013.

Is Planned Obsolescence becoming Obsolete?

For Americans, the concept of the annual model change is nothing new, since the early 1900's products have been built with the mentality that at some point everything gets replaced.   For Henry Ford, the Model T had a lifespan of eight years for most owners, which was considered impressive as most of the competition only lasted six.   Every year and a half  there is a new electronic, such as a "specific letter" phone, pod or laptop.   As soon as a consumer finishes loading last years digital pictures, there are higher resolution, clearer images to be made. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?   I think most Americans felt fed up with the status quo, but treated it for the longest time as just that, how things were.   In 2007, however, the shock of collapsing global markets and bank scandals as well as increases in fuel prices seemed to change not only consumers but manufacturers as well, at least in the realm of automotive products.

Before getting into what we all saw happened to automotive manufacturers in 2007. lets take a short jaunt in time to another period when car manufacturers had to change their ways or be visited by the spirits of lost profit.   The year was 1972, most Americans owned cars produced by the Big Two, General Motors and Ford.   These beasts of the road were almost all derivatives of the "muscle car" phenomenon which had arisen in the early 1960's.   Large displacement engines, solid steel bodies and almost non-existent miles-per-gallon was how it was if you were an American car owner at this time.  Don't get me wrong, as an owner of some of that gas-guzzling Detroit steel of the 1960's there is a certain love affair to be had, but in 1972, no one was ready for what October of the next year would bring.   In response for America supplying arms and training to Israel, OPEC decided to "punish" America by placing an embargo on oil headed to the US.   Suddenly  overnight, many American gas stations could not afford to fill all the daily drivers, and some prices shot so high drivers could not afford to run their cars at all.  This gave a Japanese company, Toyota, the chance to gain a market share in a country that was all but closed off to imports.   1973 also saw drastic changes in design and size of American produced cars to compete with the fuel-sipping Asian imports.

The times were changing, and while some concessions would be made, the Big Two still clung to the mentality of planned obsolescence  even with the little Japanese cars plugged on for years and years past their American competitors.   Disparity in quality came to a head during the begging of the "great recession" in 2007, with almost all automotive manufacturers in the United States filing bankruptcy or coming awful close.  Pontiac, a staple of GM was allowed to perish so that as a whole, GM would survive.  Chevrolet asked the government for financial support to prevent itself from following suit.   Ford underwent extreme restructuring and barely skimmed by without asking for assistance.   Toyota, however, continued to show market growth, gaining sales of its most popular product, the Corolla, and backed these figures with claims that over 80% of Toyota's sold since the 1980's were still on the roads.   Ford could see the writing on the wall.   Foreign Ford models had increased in reliability, quality and decreased in fuel consumption as European markets had dictated was necessary.   With a few tweaks, those cars would be brought home to America, and would help resurrect the auto maker.   Chevrolet, not having as much worldwide success would have to start from scratch.

In addition, foreign auto makers who had lost market coverage in America or had never really gained a foothold, such as FIAT of Italy managed to come screaming back into America after 25 years with tiny economic dynamos like the FIAT 500.   European public demands had long dictated how cars sold there would have to conform to standards which now every American wanted.   With the potential end to the recession wallets are still light and fuel prices are still high nationally so MPG, reliability, and longevity will seem to stay the new advertising buzzwords for the foreseeable future.  Will the American brands learn the lesson this time? Is it too late to wrestle back the market that global giant Toyota has developed at home and abroad?   Finally does it even matter, since planned obsolescence is little more than a marketing scheme to get Americans to buy the next greatest?   The truth is, as Americans, in the realm of Automobiles, we are starting to reject the notion that cars only last six to eight years, so perhaps one day planned obsolescence will not be an effective strategy

Links:
original article on American buying habits becoming more European

Toyota's sales figures

Ford's December 2012 sales

GM's 2012 sales figures

Although Not Annual, Are They Always Necessary???

Rumors have been circulating through the gaming world that Sony’s PS3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360 will soon be “so last year”. Sony is developing a PS4, and Microsoft has Xbox 720 in the works. I am not what you would consider a gamer by any means, but growing up in the generation that I did had me mesmerized with what I could do with a controller in my hand and a television in my sights. I own an Xbox 360 with the Kinect, and on occasion between schoolwork and my son I will play some Madden or immerse myself in the world of a soldier with Call of Duty.

The society we are a part of today has such a fascination with the bigger better thing that we forget how useful the old model was to begin with. But, that is not necessarily our fault. It began with the big automobile manufacturer duel of the early 1900’s between Ford and GM; more specifically between Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan. These two men helped to revolutionize the automobile industry and mass production as a whole. It started with Ford’s Model T that because of its affordable price and durable make-up was leaps and bounds ahead of competition if you could even call it that. Sloan was able to adapt top something that Ford just would not, and that was to enhance and change. Ford’s “antiquated values” as mentioned in Giles Slade’s Made to Break, held him back in keeping up with Sloan’s innovations and engineering breakthroughs. So from there dawned a new idea; making things that were meant to be replaced by something new and improved. Ford’s old state of mind was to make a product that would outlast its worth, a product that would give you it’s all for years to come. But it was no match for what Sloan was developing, something that was updated annually. Eventually the Ford Motor Co. would catch on, and is still to this day, along with GM, two of the top selling car manufacturers in the U.S.

I personally appreciate the ideals that Ford possessed because I find it quite ridiculous that products that are available to me today were made to last only until a new one was developed. That of course is far from true. There are cars that last years and years, and other products that last way beyond what was expected. For example, the microwave we currently own is over 30 years old, and I’m willing to put money on the fact that it works better than half the microwaves that are in stores today. Other than those types of examples the products of today are not made with the same care that they were 100 years ago I don’t care what those engineers say. It has become obsession for companies to come out with new models every year or other year. That is there job, once they have perfected one prototype and it has become ready for sale, they immediately start to work on how to improve it. I understand that without that mentality the numerous people that work as developers would not have jobs, but I find it humorous sometimes about the craze of a new item.

As for the gaming world, there are questions whether the current PS3 and Xbox 360 have even begun to utilize their full potentials. I’m not talking about the improvements that will be made for the new systems; I mean the current games that are being made for these systems are not displaying all of what these things can really do. A question was posed to a top developer for Sony that said, " A lot of people say that game developers are not using the total capacity of the PS3. What have you guys done, if anything, to try to use the full potential of the machine in this new engine design and in this game?" and the answer given was, "I do not think we will use the full potential of the PS3, no other devloper has don so far. it is new technology and a different structure than we are used to working with. But I do think we have used the PS3 very well. We have used SPU's, the small processors, effectively." So even though a new version will ultimately be released in the coming months the full potential of the product will never be used. That sseems like a big waste, and is something htat will just have to be accepted apparently in our worlds bigger, better mind set. 

Sources:

Slade, Giles- Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America.

Link to website used:

http://www.ps3news.com/playstation-3-psn-news/top-developer-confirms-nobody-is-using-ps3-to-full-capacity/

The Development of Sound: Victorian America Through the 1930's

      In Victorian America, having an instrument was a luxury. Only those with some amount of wealth were able to own an instrument such as a piano or organ, and leisure time was a necessity for learning how to play. Music in the home at this time was largely related to sophistication and status.

          Things began to change with Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877. As parlors became popular near the turn of the century, phonographs for home use began to develop. This invention gave those with less wealth a chance to appreciate the same music as the upper-class, even if they could not play an instrument. While wax cylinders were initially used to store recordings, the record supplanted it and became the mainstay. Americans bought 106 million records in 1921, spending more on this form of entertainment than any other.

After the camaraderie of the phonograph wore off, people started viewing them as an eyesore to their home decor. Image of self and home was very important in this time. The phonograph started being made as a piece of furniture that could be aesthetically pleasing when not in use.  

         In the 1920's, the radio displaced the phonograph as the 'music box' of choice. While only 11 percent of American homes had a radio in 1924, 81 percent owned one by 1940. Early radio was popular not only because you could receive messages, but because you could also transmit them. As laws came into place, the Radio Corporation of America and Westinghouse helped create a huge consumer market for radio programming. People imagined the radio was talking directly to them, giving it a personal feel in an increasing impersonal age. Popular radio programs included FDR's fireside chats, popular shows such as Amos n' Andy, and other programs such as baseball games, soap operas, and of course music. National radio broadcasting exposed Americans to the lifestyles of fellow countrymen living in different settings and environments all around the U.S. Records and radio fostered a national culture and paved the way for other communications technologies such as television and the internet. 
    

Evolution of Advertising

           

 Advertisements in the early 1900’s, late 1800s were more simplistic and straightforward than they are in today’s world. Today, we have Sasquatches getting fooled then going berserk; talking babies are promoting stock trading and buying; and we have men dressing in outfits made of Doritos. All of this for the simple purpose of getting a company’s name or a company’s brand out in the public. When advertisements first came out, they were more straightforward and informational. They usually consisted of a large paragraph with a coinciding picture to accompany it. They were there simply to let the public know that there is a problem to fix their problem or aid them in any way. Nowadays, advertisements are more visual and sexual, in a sense. Women are wearing more provocative clothing; men are doing unconventional things in advertisements, and much else. There were rules and standards in the early days of advertising. They had the same idea in mind but there was just simply a different way of doing it.

            Women nowadays have to appeal to men in a sexual, visual way or they must appeal to their own gender through “acting sexy” and “being independent”. Women have much more to live up to nowadays because it seems that to be the “ideal woman”, you must be in incredible shape and be beautiful. The standards for outer beauty have gotten higher while the standards for common decency have decreased. People who are prone to advertising have much more to live up to, both men and women, because the people creating advertising create a high standard for outer beauty or any other subliminal message they are trying to convey to you. Advertisements have gotten more complex and subtle than advertisements in the early 20^th century.

            While rifling through those massive encyclopedias of advertisements and magazine articles, it made me realize how much advertising has changed. Advertising had to change along with technology, but I did not even realize how much the substance of advertisements have changed. They were artistic and hand-written/drawn; they had information to detail the product; and lastly, they had a picture to correspond with the advertisement. They were straightforward and honest and if people did not like it, then they didn’t buy it; it was as simple as that. Nowadays, every five minutes of a television program leads to several minutes of advertising that is forced upon us. The main theme is that advertising has changed drastically since the early days of advertising. To some it may be bad, to others it may be good. However, advertising has changed and it is only bound to change even more as it continues to progress.

http://voices.yahoo.com/advertising-has-changed-over-time-1981023.html?cat=52

            Pet Consumerism

            There is an enormous market surrounding pet consumerism in the United States that often seems to fly under the radar of attention. Besides the things one would expect pet owners to spend on (veterinarian care, food and name tags), there is also spending on toys, accessories, pet insurance and everything else imaginable. According to Animal House: Economics of Pets and Household, “Pet spending in the U.S. increased...from $17 billion in 1994 to $34 billion by 2004.” (Schwartz, et al., 2)

            I don’t personally own a pet and in fact, I never have, so I do not necessarily relate to the companionship wrought between a pet owner and his or her pet. However, that amount of spending seems unnecessarily lavish. To put some perspective to that spending, according to the International Monetary Fund’s ranking of countries by gross domestic product (GDP), pet spending in the United States would be number 89 out of a listed 185 countries.

Certainly, that’s not a mindboggling number, but at the same time, it’s spending on pets. There are people starving in Africa, without access to clean drinking water or freezing because they don’t have a coat and there are pet owners that are putting pink sweaters on their Chiwawa. I appreciate man’s best friend as much as the next person, but in some sense, there has to be an appreciation for perspective.

For instance, look at this report from News Channel Five:

            As the report remarks, the average owner is expected to spend on average $46 during the holidays on gifts for their pets. I understand wanting to pamper your pet, but pampering them to the tune of forty-six dollars? That feels excessive. Some children are not even able to have a Christmas because of various socioeconomic circumstances and pets are getting all of that? I don’t think I’m being too hyperbolic here when I lambaste that excess.

            To be fair, the spending makes sense; this pet market aligns well with our American culture: we love our pets. As I mentioned, dog is man’s best friend and we want to maintain that relationship by buying our friend things, making sure he or she’s healthy and the like. In conclusion, to my original point, yes, spending on the necessities like food and medical care makes sense, but the other things? I think it’s a bit much.

            Thus, I propose this question to others: Do we spend too much on our pets? Moreover, with respect to such spending and consumerism around pets, are our priorities misaligned?  

Works Cited

Schwarz, Peter M., Jennifer L. Troyer, and Jennifer Beck Walker. "Animal House: Economics Of  Pets And The Household." B.E. Journal Of Economic Analysis & Policy: Contributions To Economic Analysis & Policy 7.1 (2007): 1-25. Business Source Complete. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

"World Economic Outlook Database October 2012." World Economic Outlook Database October 2012. International Monetary Fund, Oct. 2012. Web. 02 Mar. 2013.

                                              Alcoholism! An American Pastime

    Is alcoholism a major problem in our country? This recent study shows how many men and women drink alcohol on a random given day. While the majority of individuals surveyed claim to have not had any at all, the percentage that excessively consumes alcohol is surprisingly high. The possibility of this being a daily activity for them puts them at great risk for alcohol-related health issues. However, I don’t believe that what the article qualifies as “binge drinking” is an excessive amount (only four drinks for men and three drinks for women). Perhaps if this amount of alcohol was consumed by a single person every day, it would be an issue, but on any given day it doesn’t seem like a problem.
    
    So what exactly is considered drinking too much? There are certainly health risks to drinking in excess, but that won’t stop people from doing it.  People may do this as an escape from stress or a bad day. I believe that everyone should stop worrying about our country consuming too much alcohol. Sure, there is a generous percentage of people that drink more than what is recommended in the federal guidelines, but this really comes down to freedom of choice. They should be aware of the health risks.

-Mark Abrams
Grens, K. (2013). Study says too many americans still drink too much. Reuters, Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/study-says-too-many-americans-still-drink-too-000116086.html