The importance of newspapers...

If you've been following the massive chain reaction that the current economic crisis is producing, you might have heard about the impending collapse of the newspaper industry. Companies like CanWest (a massive Canadian media conglomerate) are dangerously close to defaulting on its loans--which are in the tens of billions--used to purchase a swath of North American news outlets. Throughout the country, large newspapers are now being forced to cutback, continually announcing expansion cutbacks and job losses. 

Much of the current downfall is being blamed on declining advertising revenues (a newspaper's largest source of revenue), but the newspaper industry has been on a downward spiral for quite some time. The rise of the internet has perhaps been the greatest enemy of the industry, as readers can now gather their information online (often for free) and from a wider range of sources. And where the people go, the advertisers (and more importantly, their money) go. Bloggers are being partially blamed for the downfall. Even environmental concerns and an impatient society unwilling to sit down and read the morning paper over a cup o' Joe can be blamed for the industry's potential downfall. 

Many are saying good riddance. There's no need for newspapers, or at least the print versions. But these people are wrong. Dead wrong.

Newspapers are our best source of credible information. It is true, there is much concern over the monopolization of the industry and the top-down influence on the paper's content, but the majority of our news service from newspapers is credible. No matter what the conspiracy theorists say, we can trust most newspapers, as long as we act as critically thinking readers. 

Imagine a world without newspapers (including those who have moved online), where the only source of information comes from TV, unregulated websites, magazines and ahem, blogs (I would trust a Globe & Mail article over anything found on this site 9 times out of 10). TV is wonderful, but even more at risk of this top-down influence and is often greatly condensed. The unregulated sources are often fraught with mixed and inaccurate information.

We need newspapers because they keep us well-informed. They are trustworthy, credible sources; the catalysts of democracy, if you will. Many have columns that allow credible writers to dish out their honest opinion (it is true that this is not always the case, as has been seen with the numerous and controversial drops of Gwynne Dyer's column). Some that have adopted sophisticated websites now have blogs from reporters, columnists and editors, allowing them to express their thoughts on issues without the constraints of the mainstream news.

I would not be surprised to see it and other media outlets suddenly come crawling to the door of the government looking for some handouts. And with the automotive sector getting much of its way, I don't see why the newspapers couldn't get the same. 

The newspaper industry has its control issues, but it is absolutely necessary to keep around. If not for the democratic and informative benefits, then at least for those who still find the time to sit down with a cup of coffee or an afternoon snack and read the print version.   

Grads looking for a job?

No, this isn't a classifieds site, but I wouldn't be surprised if a whole swath of university graduates and potential graduates end up thinking it is.

The economic crisis is hitting the North American labour markets hard. People are losing jobs right, left and centre. But it's not just those who are losing jobs that are in trouble. The university and college grads that have just committed many years of their life to education in order to get a good job when they come out may find that there is very little for them. And the Baby Boomers (whose work we're supposed to take over) don't want to retire yet, especially since their RRSPs have gone down the toilet. Shit.

So what to do? Maybe you'll find that job that you were looking for, but you'll certainly face stiffer competition to actually get the job.

With limited jobs out there, employers may be looking for only the top candidates for jobs. You might have been able to get that job with your undergrad degree before, but with so few jobs, you might need an additional degree or certificate to boost yourself above the rest. Uh oh, that could be costly.

Alternatively, you could shoot lower. With an undergrad degree, maybe it's far more appropriate to look for the jobs that only require a high school diploma or some years of post-secondary training, putting yourself above the rest with your qualifications. The pay would probably be less than other jobs, but at least it would be better than EI.

Then again, you could always go back to school. If employers are looking for that extra nudge, school might be the way to go. Maybe grab yourself a Master's degree or short-term college diploma. If you want job security, take a look at professional schools. Just don't wade too far into those fancy-schmancy business schools. Yet. The financial sector has taken a beating, and the first to go are the new people. And the financial pain is far from over.

But school costs money. Some people simply can't afford going back. And there's no guarantee that throwing $8000 at a Master's degree will help you get a job. And getting into schools might be tough, too. Not only will more people be tempted to take this root (making it tougher to get in), universities have been hit financially too, resulting in higher tuition fees, lower quality of education and an apprehension to expand university services. You could go back to school, but it might be crap. Is it really worth it?

Us upper years are in a tough spot, especially those who are about to enter the job market. I would say that the government should provide help for these people in the way of jobs, but at least us youngens have the benefit of time to build ourselves. The people who are losing their jobs right now may have mortgages, kids and other expenses. They need more help right now.

The biggest recommendation I could give to the government is to extend to interest-rate freeze period on student loans. As far as I understand, the banks come a bitin' six months after graduation. That period of time needs to be extended significantly so that recent grads don't end up declaring bankruptcy in their twenties.

If I had a billion dollars...

A billion dollars used to seem like a lot of money. But nowadays, that value has somehow diminished in my mind. 

Don't get me wrong, it is still a lot of money. I have no idea (and probably never will) what having that kind of money would be like and when a lot of thought is put into it, a billion dollars is a whole whack of cash. 

But I'm talking about the bigger picture. When I hear that a company is worth $1.7B, I think to myself, "Oh, it's only $1.7B. That's not too big." Or even when I hear that the Big Three are losing tens of billions of dollars; it just doesn't hit me as hard as it once might have.

So why is this happening in my crazy ol' mind? I think it has to do with the amount of money being thrown around in this economic crisis. Remember the much-heralded $700B bailout plan that was the talk of the town for so many weeks? I wouldn't be surprised if you forgot about it. Because apparently it wasn't enough. There were other bailout plans passed through, some in the $200B range, but even those don't seem all that big anymore. Compared to $700B, $200B is just a tack-on. 

Once it became known that $700B wasn't nearly enough to fix everything, the notional value of a billion fell off the map. With these absolutely ridiculous dollar figures being thrown around daily on the news, it's not hard to imagine why the lesser figures aren't as meaningful anymore. Remember when hearing that Bill Gates had $50B or something silly like that? That ain't nothin' in my head now, at least in comparison to everything else. 

It's strange. A billion dollars is a lot of money. But it just doesn't have that same ring to it. Who would've thunk it?  

Just a thought on bottled water...

Our school seems to be having a drive aimed at educating people towards the truth of bottled water. My intention is not to preach that sermon, but I do suggest looking into bottled water. There's a lot of mischief going on in that industry.

Something quickly came across my mind today concerning bottled water and its pricing. A 591 ml bottle of Dasani or Evian runs between $1.50 and $2.00 (probably higher if you're at some large event). Do the math and that's approximately $2.54/litre. Compare that with one of our most hated, but desired commodities: gasoline. Right now gas is cheap, hovering around $0.79/litre, but in the summer it was as high as $1.49/litre. Regardless, gasoline never even came close to the price of bottled water.

This will be a frighteningly interesting situation in the future. Considering our lives and economy seem to dwell so much on oil prices and gasoline prices, how amazing our lives will be when our water situation starts to look like oil's: falling rapidly. The price of water that we get essentially for free at this point could very well grow higher than the price of gasoline. We'll be kicking ourselves at that point. Or have inhabited the rest of the solar system (fingers crossed).

Bad outlook for next year's crop...

It seems tiresome that I write so often about the impacts of the financial crisis, but it speaks not to my nerdiness, but the truly incredible significance it has.

A recent article in the Globe & Mail detailed the impact that the crisis is having on the endowment funds of universities throughout Canada. The endowment funds, are far as I know, are the funds that a university has to spend outside of the income it generates from tuition and fees from students. This money largely comes from the government and private donors and is often invested in the money markets. October of 2007 saw the highest value of Canadian university endowment funds ever seen, with a total of nearly CAD$10 billion. My, things have changed.

With the collapse in the market, universities have seen their endowment funds crumble. Some have lost as much as $100m alone, nearly 1/3 of their endowment funds. And with the ever-increasing costs of running a school and the lack of adequate government funding, things are looking bleak. And it doesn't help that private donors are hesitant to dish out their now seriously important cash. This could have a massive impact on students in Canada and the quality of our education.

In light of their new financial situation, university leaders have been expressing concern over the parts of the universities that will be hit. The hiring of new faculty and the continued employment of some faculty will be ceased at some schools. This is already a problem at many schools, particularly Trent (which prides itself on its low student-to-faculty ratio) where instructors are being hired on a temporary and part-time basis at a significantly lower wage than their full-time counterparts. Believe me, you don't want the people in these positions teaching you.

Scholarships will also be hit. For many schools, scholarships are the best way to attract the best and brightest to your school. The main (and deciding) reason I am at Trent now is because they provide me with a more than healthy scholarship. My money won't be effected by the downturn, but it could prevent others who were in my situation from deciding to come here or to any other school, and that's a sad thought. Even more important may be the reduction in smaller scholarships, of which there are thousands. These scholarships (though sometimes not particularly huge) help to reduce the cost of university for many students, which is the largest barrier to education for many people.

Other programs on campus may get cut, though it is hard to tell which ones. Others may simple be reduced. But the whole combination of program cutting will reduce the overall quality of the education.

The biggest impact may be absorbed by the students themselves in the cost of tuition and fees, which may increase substantially from their already high levels.

It is important to note that the students planning to come to school for the first time next year may not be adversely affected because the schools have already budgeted most of their tuition and scholarship numbers for the next year, but the class entering in 2010 will certainly feel the pain.

If I were selfish about this I might think this is no biggie. But I have family who will be starting university in the next few years. They will certainly be hit. But I'll be gone after the next year, so no harm to me, right? Well, I plan on going on to professional school and I have many friends looking into graduate school. Undergraduate costs are nothing compared to those programs, so we might all get hit.

Santa's sleigh might be a little lighter this year...

No, jolly ol' St. Nick hasn't suddenly realized that he is at a massive risk of diabetes and heart disease and decided to sign up for Jenny Craig's attractive weight loss program. Although, who's to say he hasn't. It has been quite awhile since we've seen him last.

The lightness of his sleigh won't come from Santa himself, but from his bag of goodies. Something tells me Christmas won't be quite the same this year.

The economic crisis that has hit us is already starting to have significant effects on people's savings, values of their homes, their jobs and ultimately their spending practices. But here we are in mid-November. This is the time when our consumption-laden society starts to vamp up for the Christmas (holiday, to be politically correct) shopping season. This is when the wallets are supposed to open up so we can all buy those sweet, sweet goods we all know and love. I'm not quite sure that will happen this year.

The crisis is far from over and far from starting to recover. Many of the big box stores that thrive off the holiday season are preparing for the worst, as many of them have shut down numerous stores and the people who rely on them for temporary employment (students, stay-at-home parents, the elderly etc) during the season are being turned away in droves. And this crisis certainly won't be solved by people going out and spending money (circa 2001). Nobody has any.

So what will this mean for little Johnny and Sally Smith, who have been used to getting the latest iPod or XBox for the past decade of holiday seasons? Well, one can only hope the parents will be able to say no. And they better, because many will be financially forced to say no. I'm not sure how much good a new Wii will be if there's no electricity to run it after the hydro company shuts your power off for accruing bills that are far past due.

People may now be able to cherish those long-lost staples of the holiday season that are commonly gawked at: being with friends and family, non-materialistic generosity and being thankful for what we have. A little hokey, isn't it? But there's something to it.

I come from a relatively privileged household and grew up with my Christmas focus being all the great gifts I got. And rarely did my parents disappoint. This is not to say I was spoiled, but I put a higher value on materialistic gifts than on the other parts of the holiday. I didn't really realize it to its full extent until I moved away from home and was only able to see family every few months. I didn't care about the gifts or anything like that (although they still are nice to get); I was far happier to be home enjoying what I had.

I also had a terribly frustrating time during my first year of holiday shopping on my own. I figured that since I was away from home I could bring everyone cool, exotic gifts. The price tag was high (especially when I had become financially independent and much poorer than I had ever been), but I didn't care because I knew everyone would be happy with such things. I didn't quite get the reaction I was looking for, which was a little troubling. But I later realized everyone was just happy to see me and there was no materialistic value anyone can put on that.

So now I hesitate to spend ridiculous amounts on people. Not because they won't care about the gifts or be happy about them, but because they value the non-materialistic pieces more. And it is a far nicer way to enjoy the holidays.

There is a silver lining in this crisis. We've focused on consumerism and materialistic value for far too long. If people are able to shift away from this come the holidays, it could be one of the most valuable and humbling shifts we could ever take.