When Unlimited Data Doesn't Mean Unlimited Data.

Ah, the golden age of mobile telecom. Remember when mobile phone plans came with unlimited data... and meant it? That's right, having unlimited data meant you could use as much data as you wanted, without any fear of being penalized. Those days have long since gone the way of the dinosaurs, but the use of the word unlimited has not.

Everywhere you look, major mobile providers like Verizon and T-Mobile love to advertise their unlimited data plans. I'm amazed at their amorphous use of the word unlimited though. Their data plans are in fact not unlimited -- they have various levels of data caps depending on your chosen monthly fee.

So... when did the definition of the word unlimited come to mean anything but?

Obviously, providers employ unlimited as a selling point to encourage customers to use their service. I find this grossly negligent and disingenuous, though. Instead of actually providing an unlimited amount of data, they insert some weaselly bit of fine print into the whole deal. For X rate per month, you'll receive an "unlimited" amount of data... up to X GB.

THIS COMPLETELY NEGATES THE MEANING OF THE WORD UNLIMITED!

T-Mobile's CEO, John Legere, recently went on a tirade against thousands of his own customers. Why? Because this crafty group of T-Mobile subscribers has found a workaround for their mobile data caps, whether by custom-coded applications, rooting their phone or writing programs to hide their actual data usage from the network.

In other words, the CEO of T-Mobile is mad about his own unlimited data customers having unlimited data.

I can't make this stuff up, folks.

To be quite honest, I say bravo to these smart individuals whom refuse to be taken for a ride. They have the skill and know-how to receive what they so rightfully are paying for. Considering the actual cost to provide data is obscenely cheap for telecom giants like T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and others, I feel absolutely zero pity for them. It's not so pleasant when the shoe is on the other foot, now is it?

If you're going to advertise something as unlimited, make sure it's actually unlimited. Otherwise, be up front about what you're selling. It's only the right thing to do.

Shoe Shopping Is A Total Scam.

Honestly, I like to shop. Yeah, I know... I'm one of the rare guys who enjoys shopping. Yet, if there's one thing I don't like to shop for, it's shoes. I wear a size 10.5 Wide, which is a fairly hard combination to find. Thankfully, I can depend on Skechers to make a pair of tennis shoes that I fit into.

Today was a different experience, though. I've wanted to find a pair of casual, Oxford style shoes for a while. Unfortunately, I've had no luck in finding any for a reasonable price. Sure, I could pay upwards of $75-$100 for a pair that will fit me, but that's just ridiculous. As a general rule of thumb, I won't pay more than $50 for a pair of shoes -- and that's pushing it.

The very moment you walk into a shoe store like this, you're in immediate danger of being ripped off.

It's not that I can't afford a pair of $100 shoes, it's just that I'm not dumb enough to spend that much. They're shoes, for goodness sake! I wear them on my feet -- it's not like they can launch me to the moon. Shoes simply should not cost that much. In reality, they don't... and I have proof.

Last year, a thirty-plus year veteran of Nike revealed a long-standing mystery within the tennis shoe industry. Presenting before the University of Oregon's Sports Product Management program, Nike employee Steve Bence broke down just how much a typical $100 pair of Nike shoes costs to produce. I won't bore you with the exact details, but Bence provided some startling numbers. A pair of $100 Nike shoes costs about $28 to make and ship to the United States. By the time that pair of shoes has overhead costs and taxes levied upon it, Nike sells it at wholesale for around $50, making approximately 9% profit. I honestly don't take issue with this -- 9% profit is reasonable. Now, here comes the shocking part.

Once the shoe is purchased at wholesale by a retailer, they immediately raise the price to $100! That's where all the profit goes -- to the retailers. And remember... those shoes are being sold by part-time employees making minimum wage with no health benefits. Shoe retailers like Foot Locker (whom also owns Champs, Footaction and Eastbay) are making an absolutely killing on their retail products. Foot Locker was ranked #400 on the 2014 edition of the Fortune 500 list -- their market value was an astounding $6.8 Billion. Obviously, the profit margins are even higher on shoes that get top promotional billing, like Air Jordans.

So no, I won't buy a shoe that's been marked up nearly 100% percent at retail... and I hope you wouldn't either. Be a smarter shopper!

President Obama is Wrong On the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I’ve spent the last six and half years yanking this economy out of the worst recession since the Great Depression."

That's the opening salvo from President Obama in an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren. During a recent interview taped with Hardball host Chris Matthews on MSNBC, Obama went into great detail about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The TPP is a massive trade agreement between twelve nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Combined, this trade agreement would account for over 40% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). As the agreement currently stands, it would drastically alter copyright and intellectual property law on a global scale. Essentially, the other eleven countries in the trade agreement would adopt the copyright and trademark policies of the United States, but then take those same laws to the next level of enforcement. This would directly influence the production of pharmaceuticals, automobiles, consumer goods, films and other forms of media. The drastic changes that would result from the TPP include:

• Internet Service Providers would be required to police their own networks and users for potential copyright infringement. There wouldn't even need to be clear evidence that a user had committed such infringement; the TPP only requires that three allegations be made. At that point, users can and will be restricted from accessing the internet through that ISP and shall be placed on a black list, which would be accessible to other ISP's. Without any sort of trial, a private person can be banned from accessing the internet from the comfort of their own home.
• Digital locks, which range from special frequencies in remotes to phone's being restricted to one particular cellular network, would be heavily bolstered. This means that copyright holders could legally shut down any form of competition to their product, without so much as a civil trial or investigation. This is particularly frightening, considering the company with the deepest pockets would win every time.
• Journalists and their sources for information would be at great risk should the TPP be enacted. They would be required to disclose private data about any whistle-blowers within a corporate institution, should that company feel their intellectual properties are being impeded upon or put at risk. The TPP is the ultimate silencer when it comes to keeping dirty corporate dealings private.
• The ability for private citizens to discuss and share their personal experiences about products or services through the Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law would be a sitting duck. The TPP would make it near impossible for any of us to comment on anything without being at risk for litigation from the holder of a copyright. Let's say you review your local Subway on Yelp and didn't like their service. If Subway reads your review and feels that it infringes upon their trademark because you mentioned them, then they can order for it to be removed. You can see where I'm going with this... big business could silence anyone for any reason.
• The TPP conveniently extends to nations where generic drugs are produced and sold to other nations, including the United States. This would mean that big pharmaceutical companies could legally restrict any country involved with the TPP from allowing the production of generic drugs that would compete with their own products.
• In cases where private consumers share various forms of media without the intent for commercial gain (transcribing an old book for others to read for free, creating a free voice dub translation for a foreign film, using a video to create a parody of it, etc.), that person could face stiff fines and lengthy jail time -- even if the copyright holder in question does not make a claim against the consumer!

As you can see, the TPP is nothing but a big push by the President and other politicians to secure profits for major corporations. When lobbyists practically own all the politicians in our government, this should be no surprise. Not only would the above-mentioned changes alter the digital landscape, but they would further increase the flow of jobs outside the United States and into nations where employment laws are extremely lenient. As if the outsourcing of jobs in this nation wasn't already exacerbated, the TPP would compound the problem to a level we've never seen before.

Obama, a fair majority of Democrats and nearly all of the Republicans in Washington are pushing for this agreement to go through. Warren, whom staunchly opposes the TPP, was called out by name during Obama's interview. He said...

"I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues. But she's wrong on this."

Warren has stated her concerns about the secrecy of the TPP time and time again. She's in the right on this issue -- the TPP's terms are not even public knowledge and are only available to select few. The document language of the TPP agreement is kept in private and delegates are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Essentially -- even if Obama did want to reveal information about the TPP to the American public (which he doesn't), by law he would not be able to. This is certainly a cause for alarm. Some of the TPP agreement has been leaked to the public, thanks to Wikileaks. You can (and should) read it here.

"And when you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is... when you dig into the facts, they are wrong.”

We have dug into the facts, Mr. President. You're no different than the majority of political leaders that have come before you. Whomever has the biggest wallet has the biggest voice in Washington. The President clearly believes he alone helped to fix the economic mess left by the Bush Administration. He's obviously baffled by those, like Elizabeth Warren, whom would oppose his efforts to continue "fixing" our economy.

That's how I know he's wrong.

Breasts In The Workplace -- Do They Matter?

Queen Louise of Prussia -- Josef Grassi, 1804

My article today will be a very frank discussion about the power of sex appeal in the work place. More specifically, does a woman's bust size have any bearing on personal achievement, salary, promotions and responsibility? Many of the answers I discovered weren't so shocking. Other answers went against my expectations. Here's what I determined.

Overall, a woman's breast size does have an impact on how she is perceived on the job. For empirical proof, one has to look no further than an extensive research study performed by a Cornell University professor in 2010. The survey respondents were all waitresses. In this study, it was clearly determined that the larger a bust size a woman has, the higher her average tips were. Larger breasts equated to higher earnings, no matter the respondent's age, location or level of experience. This set of information was not surprising at all. In fact, it just goes to support why restaurants like Hooters, Twin Peaks and the Tilted Kilt are so successful. Within the food industry, such establishments are called breastaurants. They cater to a clientele that likes a little sex appeal with their club sandwiches, chicken wings and frosty beer. Not only are larger busts beneficial to the waitresses, but it also drives up profits for the establishments. High-earning waitresses tend to remain at their positions longer, which secures repeat customers whom will come back time and time again for the same level of "service". While I don't believe we needed such a research study to know this, it's nice to have some hard proof to back up the notion. More cleavage means more tips.

As you move up the corporate ladder, though... breasts aren't always a benefit. Numerous lawsuits in recent years have involved large-breasted women whom were fired from their positions, claiming that their bountiful busts were chastised for being 'too hot' or 'got in the way of business". In almost all of these various suits, the women won and were paid handsomely. In fact, studies have shown that male co-workers view women with medium size breasts as the most professional. Why? Who knows... men aren't always that bright. Male survey respondents have stated that large breasted women are intimidating or distracting, thereby keeping them from performing their job effectively. Or, they have said that large breasts implied that a woman was ignorant or not qualified. On the opposite end, small chested women were viewed as weak or ineffective. Again... men can be very, very oafish, so take this data with a grain of salt.

The problem large breasted women face in the corporate arena is that -- to put it simply -- it's hard to find clothes that fit properly without showing their endowments off. Fashion typically is not tailored for women with grandiose busts, which leads to consistently exposed, unwanted cleavage. This is a catch-22 for these women; it's not like they can hide their chest. A general rule of thumb in many corporate offices is that tops should land two inches above the cleavage line. This is fine and dandy when you're a modest A, B or small C cup. Yet, when you have large breasts, it can be highly difficult to find anything that will meet this standard. What's a big breasted gal to do?

Ultimately, this is a problem more and more women are going to face. Hard data shows that the average bust size is growing. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the average American woman weighed 140 pounds in the 1960's. In the 1970's, that rose to 144 pounds. By the 1980's, it was 154 pounds. In 2010, that number had grown to 166 pounds. Obviously, women (and everyone else) are becoming heavier. This is no surprise, given the climbing obesity rate. These numbers directly correspond to the increase in bust size, as measured by the bras women purchase. Internal retail data in the lingerie industry has shown that, over the past fifteen years, the average bra size purchased has gone from 34B to 36C. Breast are indeed growing larger. This isn't to say that the climbing rate of larger breasts isn't completely linked to our increasing waist-lines, but it is playing a keen role in it. Along with our eating habits, hormones in our foods are also participating in ballooning women's chests. Particularly, many of the foods we ingest (dairy milk, beef, pork) have high levels of super estrogen, which many scientists and food analysts suspect of influencing the size of breasts.

Venus of Urbino -- Titian, 1538

In all of the research data I've read, every personal blog and every news article, it became blatantly clear that how a woman looks in the workplace has a measurable influence on her success. In areas where women directly serve customers -- retail and service industries -- having larger breasts is a clear advantage. In other work sectors -- especially the corporate environment -- larger breasts can actually hinder your achievement and make others incorrectly judge you. Fundamentally, I'd say there's one constant that must be made apparent in all of this...

Guys - you have to stop basing every interaction with a woman on the size of her breasts.

My female readers -- I'd be curious for your input. I'd like to report in a future article about your personal experiences in the workplace. Contact me and tell me what you've gone through. Did your large bust get in the way of a promotion? Were you hired for a job simply because you had ample cleavage? Did you feel slighted because your breasts weren't seen as large enough? Any information you share will be completely confidential and pseudonyms will be used in the article. If you don't already know me directly via Facebook, you can reach me here via email (click). Thanks in advance.

The Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Recall (Now You're Worried?!)

News broke this week that Kraft Foods is recalling over 240,000 cases of their Macaroni & Cheese product due to small pieces of metal being found inside. Obviously, no one should be eating metal in their food. The outcry over the recall has been massive. More so, the calamity has been terrible for Kraft; their stock price took an almost immediate 2% hit after the recall was revealed.

And yet, I find myself asking...

Only now are people worried about eating Kraft Macaroni & Cheese? That stuff is terrible for you!

In only a single cup of prepared Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, there are:

• 400 calories
• 1.5g of saturated fat
• a whopping 570mg of sodium (over 30% of your daily intake)
• 48g of carbohydrates
• 3g of fat

And to think... that's only a single cup. One box makes three cups! This tally doesn't even take into consideration the potential dangers of Yellow #5 and #6 -- the two artificial food dyes that give Kraft Macaroni & Cheese its distinctive hue. How many of you have eaten a whole box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese? I know I have in the past when I was less conscientious about what I ate. Good grief! No one should eat this stuff, let alone kids (whom Kraft loves to market to)! If you regularly consume Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, there's no reason for you to suddenly get upset about their product having metal in it. You should have already been upset about what was inside the box a long time ago!