Yesterday, I talked about inflation and increasing prices. Economists can debate whether inflation is on the horizon, but all of us can see that many prices are rising. And those percentage increases are greater than the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Common sense and the ways we count our cents demonstrate that the CPI is not an adequate measure of inflation. Ten years ago, I wrote a commentary about the ways in which the government statistic varies from our daily experiences when we purchase goods and services.

The federal government has changed the way it measures CPI many times, but the most significant change occurred decades ago. If you go to the Shadow Stats website, you will discover that if the government still measured CPI the same way it did in 1980, consumer inflation would be much higher.

The lower inflation number is a great benefit to the federal government. CPI is tied to the incomes of nearly 100 million Americans who receive Social Security, food stamps, Civil Service retirement benefits, and much more. Lower cost of living adjustments reduces the government’s financial commitments.

The CPI is calculated by measuring the cost of a basket of goods. Critics point out that certain costs are excluded. The government does this because these costs can be volatile and unstable. The government also will substitute less expensive products when the price rises too much.

Yesterday, I mentioned a few examples of rising costs. Increases in home values in many areas of the country are many times greater than the government’s listed inflation rate. The cost of higher education at many of the top ranked schools is more than double the government’s listed inflation rate.

The list of rising prices of goods and services is long and rising. That is why we shouldn’t consider the CPI as a good measure of inflation.

I doubt that the CEOs of major corporations travel in the same circles as I travel. If they did, they would hear the phrase “get woke, go broke.” It appears that a majority of Americans have had enough from the woke corporate culture.

But even if they don’t pay attention to what many of their consumers are saying to each other and on social media, you would think they would pay some attention to prominent political figures. Senator Rick Scott wrote an open letter to “Woke Corporate America.” He hoped they were having fun with their virtue signaling and their attempts to one-up each other in trying to show how woke they have become.

He observed that, “You must have loved the accolades from your elitist, left-wing peers when you took the MLB All-Star Game from Georgia.” He also added, “Never mind that you destroyed working people’s jobs and hurt people who haven’t worked since COVID-19 took a member of their family or destroyed their small business.”

The CEOs might have seen a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Senator Ted Cruz (if for no other reason than the criticism the senator received for writing it). He predicted that many members of Congress “won’t look the other way on Coca-Cola’s $12 billion in back taxes owed. This time, when Major League Baseball lobbies to preserve its multibillion-dollar antitrust exception, we’ll say no thank you.”

They might have even seen the latest Rasmussen survey that discovered that more than a third (37%) of American adults said they were less likely to purchase Coca-Cola products. In fact, a majority (54%) of Republicans and a quarter (24%) of Democrats said they were less likely to purchase Coca-Cola products.

Most of us merely want corporations to focus their attention on developing superior products and services. But stay out of the culture wars and stop trying to be more woke than your competitors.

Philip Yancey begins with an admission: “I am going through a personal crisis.” He explains that he used to love reading. In fact, he understands that “books help define who I am.” But that is his past not his present.

He has discovered that the Internet and social media have trained his brain “to read a paragraph or two, and than start looking around.” When he is reading an article online pretty soon he is looking at the slide bar to see how long the article might be. He starts clicking on the links and sidebars. Soon he has lost interest in the original article.

We shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. Seven years ago, I was quoting from an article by Nicholas Carr. Since then, he has written a book that I reference every time I speak on the subject of the media or digital devices. His book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, explains why we don’t read as much and why it is so hard to concentrate. The Internet and social media are retraining our brains. He says, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”

Philip Yancey quotes from an article in Business Insider that studied pioneers like Elon Musk, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg. Most of them have a common practice known as the “five-hour rule.” They set aside at least an hour a day (or five hours a week) for deliberate learning. The people listed in the Business Insider article probably read as many books in a week or two than most Americans read in a year.

Philip Yancey acknowledges that we are “engaged in a war, and technology wields the heavy weapons.” He is trying to develop what he calls a “fortress of habit” so that he can “resurrect the rich nourishment that reading has long provided.” I recommend you do the same for your benefit and the benefit of your family.

It was a grand experiment. Declare a “War on Poverty” and years later celebrate a victory. Unfortunately, poverty won the war. The percentage of people in poverty today is just slightly lower than the percentage in the 1960s when the war to end poverty began. People living in poverty now are doing better than decades ago, but we certainly have not eliminated poverty.

Peter Cove has a bold vision. The title of his book is, Poor No More: Rethinking Dependency and the War on Poverty. He contends that the only thing that really helps end poverty is work itself. That was the foundation of the 1996 welfare reform bill but hasn’t been the focus for some time since.

He understands the problem from the inside. He is the founder of America Works, which is the first for-profit, welfare-to-work company. He has created more than one million jobs for welfare recipients through various endeavors.

He concluded that many of the government programs were not helping individuals because they stressed education and training over work itself. In the end, they had very little real world work experience and were still dependent on government largess.

America Works instead offers employment services to state and local welfare agencies with the aim of placing welfare recipients in jobs quickly. Trainers work with clients on the basics: maintaining a businesslike personal appearance, speaking properly, preparing a resume, and showing up on time. Clients quickly learn that success depends on their own self-discipline and their own motivation and effort.

Given the poor success rate of existing welfare programs, you would think that bureaucrats and politicians would be open to new ideas and concrete suggestions from people who have worked in the field. You would be wrong. Many liberal groups seem like they merely want to “double down” on the failed programs. That’s why Peter Cove’s book and ideas deserve a hearing.

A study by the Manhattan Institute explains why it is so hard for middle class families to make ends meet. The author, Oren Cass, distilled his research down in a Twitter post. “In 1984, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks salary. By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being only 52 weeks in a year.”

Christopher Ingraham wrote about this in the Washington Post, saying “This chart is the best explanation of middle-class finances you will ever see.” The chart shows the annual expenses for a family of four and plots on top of that the median male income. The margin between income and expenses gets smaller each year until the annual household expenses exceed the median male income.

The chart in the report helps to explain why families feel the financial pinch. The cost of basic necessities has increased faster than male income. Until recently we have had a booming economy with a record-setting stock market. But many families are still struggling to bring in enough income to cover housing, health care, transportation, and education.

The research focuses on male earnings because historically men were responsible for providing for their families. In the past, they were often the sole breadwinners. Today they are still seen as the primary providers for their family. Oren Cass concludes that the typical male worker a generation ago, “could be confident in his ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot.”

That is why it has become more and more difficult for families to make ends meet.

Whether you are a Christian or not, you are benefiting from the positive impact of Christianity on your life. That is the premise of the book by Dr. Rodney Stark, America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone Including Atheists. His book is a perfect response to atheistic professors who criticize America and the Christian foundation of this country.

This book is a natural one for the professor to write since he has talked about the positive contribution of Christianity to Western civilization. Since we live in a country that Stark describes as “unusually religious” we shouldn’t be surprised that many of the blessings that Christianity has brought to the world can be found in America.

He says people who attend church tend to donate more than others. In previous commentaries I have talked about the research by Arthur Brooks that found the same things. Rodney Stark says that: “religious people dominate the ranks of blood donors, to whom even some angry humanists owe their lives.” Christians also “are far more likely to contribute even to secular charities, to volunteer their times to socially beneficial programs, and to be active in civic affairs.”

Religious Americans also enjoy better physical health. They have “an average life expectancy more than seven years longer than that of the irreligious.” In fact, much of this difference remains even after the effects of “clean living” are removed.
Rodney Stark also talks about another topic we have discussed in previous commentaries: the fertility gap. The fertility rate for religious people is much higher than for secular people. He cites Eric Kaufman’s book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? That book points out that when you look at Europe, the population is declining, except in the religious sector.

Despite what you might hear from atheists and skeptics, Christianity has been a blessing to America and the world.

Often when I talk about the “deaths of despair” affecting so many young people, I am asked why are so many unhappy? There are a number of reasons, but first let’s discuss how serious this problem has become.

In the US, the suicide rate quadrupled for young men (ages 15-24) and doubled for young women from 1946 to 2006. Another study found that “suicidal thinking, severe depression, and rate of self-injury among US college students more than doubled over less than a decade.”

Dennis Prager suggests that the reasons for such despair can be put into two categories: loss of values and loss of meaning. The loss of values is easy to document in this country. Judeo-Christian values were important in the founding of this country and important in the maintenance of the republic. Also “middle class values” were important. This would include getting married, making a family, getting a good job, demonstrating self-discipline, and patriotism.

Values were also lost when various communal associations declined. The Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville explained that the strength of America derived from these professional, social, civil, political, artistic, philanthropic, and religious institutions.

A second reason for despair is lack of meaning. Viktor Frankl in his classic work, Man’s Search for Meaning, reminds us how meaning (or the lack of it) can explain so much about human nature. Poor people can be happy if they have meaning, while rich people who have money, but no meaning, are usually unhappy.

Religious faith can give life meaning. But more and more young people have no connection to religion. The fastest growing demographic among young people are the “nones” (those who define themselves as atheist, agnostic, or no preference).

So many young people today are unhappy because of the loss of values and the loss of meaning.