Forty-two years ago, when the cell phone was first invented, the new device was hailed as a major tool in boosting everyone's productivity. Today, we are discovering that the opposite is true. The cell phone has become a major distraction.

Ever notice how many people on the job are making cell phone calls? Cops, clerks, nurses, brokers — it doesn't matter who they are — their dependence on their cell phone is almost an addiction. New research reveals that you don't even have to answer your phone to reduce your productivity.

A study by the Journal of Experimental Psychology discovered that subjects who needed intense focus in their daily routines performed poorly when they simply received notification of a text or call on their phone. Their productivity dropped dramatically even if they chose to ignore the notification. Researchers call it the "degree of distraction."

Recently, I tested this concept on myself. My friends and relations will attest to my lack of interest in all things cellular. I regularly forget my phone. Many times my wife will call me on my cell, only to hear it ring on the kitchen counter next to her.

But I have grudgingly been attempting to join the 21st century in my electronic life. As such, I have a brand-new smart phone, a watch that tells me I have a call (as well as my heart rate) and an tablet at home. Over the last week, I've made sure my cell phone was on my desk, fully charged and "on" in my own experiment. I wanted to test my own level of distraction.

Money management requires a fair bit of focus; writing columns even more. Usually, I am under a deadline when I write. Producing readable copy regularly requires an enormous amount of concentration on my part. I try not to be disturbed during this process because it does throw off my focus.

This morning my cell phone was on and I received three calls and several text messages that I did not answer. Nonetheless, it took me an extra hour to complete this column. The same thing happened earlier in the week while writing another column. For me, simply the knowledge of receiving a message triggered a distracting stream of questions — who was calling me and why, was the message important, was it an emergency? Suffice it to say that I did check and see who had called just to put my mind at ease.

Granted, it was a most unscientific experiment, but it does support a growing volume of research on the subject. Although in this day and age multi-tasking is a daily chore, the facts are that human beings are really not that good at it. Workers think that they can text or access social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat and still maintain productivity. The facts are that the average office worker wastes over one-third of the day on these pursuits and that brings down their productivity level drastically.

Not only do cellphones create constant distractions, but they often interrupt important meetings. They can also represent a security risk, mixing personal and business applications on one phone. They can prove physically dangerous to those employees who believe they can multitask while performing physical work. Sometimes they can spread confidential information in the public, which is a big concern in my business.

All in all, while your cell phone can be a useful tool in your life, best practices in the work place would be to turn it off and put it a drawer until after the work day is done.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

As the unemployment rate drops toward full employment, the growing skills gap between business and labor is becoming a huge problem in this country. Fully 80 percent of manufacturers and small business owners can't find qualified staff.

Over the years, I've written several columns about this growing problem, but now the economy is picking up and unemployment, at 5.1 percent, is coming close to full employment. Both corporate and government leaders are realizing that in in some industries, such as utilities and aerospace, the skilled labor shortage may hamstring America's ability to do business in the years ahead.

The Harvard Business Review estimates that 47 percent of all new job openings over this decade will fall into the middle-skills range. Middle-skill jobs usually require postsecondary technical education and training and, in many cases, require college math and science courses if not a degree in those subjects.

Although the manufacturing sector today only represents 18 percent of total GDP, every dollar spent in manufacturing adds $1.37 to the U.S. economy. And every 100 jobs in that sector create an additional 250 jobs in other sectors that support manufacturing. The vast majority of manufacturing executives believe this growing skills gap will impact their ability to meet customer demand in the future. They say they are ready and willing to pay well above market rates for qualified employees, yet six out of 10 positions go unfilled.

Back in the day, skilled workers had two avenues to obtain marketable work skills. They could learn on the job through a cooperative apprenticeship system developed by management and company unions. But as unions declined (less than 12 percent of the total U.S. work force is represented by unions), so did the system of this on-the-job training. At the same time, the landscape has changed from gradual and incremental upgrades easily learned on the job to new skills requiring a quantum leap in technical and behavioral understanding. Things like problem solving, communication, teamwork and leadership.

That's where the second avenue of learning new workplace skills would be useful. Colleges were supposed to be the place where young people can absorb these massive breakthroughs and develop the rules necessary to excel in a modern-age professional work life. We were told to major in a field that suited our interests and talents.

Unfortunately, thanks to a high school system that has failed to adequately prepare our students in science and math, plus an American prejudice against just about anything that was not in the liberal arts field, fewer and fewer college students choose a career that is needed in the job market. Over the last two decades only 15 percent of U.S. college graduates majored in science, technology, engineering or math and that, my reader, is where the jobs are.

As the gap widens, a number of initiatives between government, education and the private sector has sought to remedy the situation through training and hiring of graduates, so far with varying degrees of success. The old system of apprenticeships, although trial-tested, is difficult to maintain, given the small number of unions remaining throughout the country.

In-house job training has also been met with some success in major corporations that have the time and money to bring a new employee up to the level of skilled competence necessary for their job requirements. However, small businesses, the main engine of employment and prosperity in this nation, do not have the time, money or number of skilled employees necessary to teach and/or train the unskilled employee.

A crisis always seems to light a fire under those who know what to do, but have just not got around to doing it yet. I think we are getting quite close to the point where everyone in the private and public sectors is going to have to roll up their sleeves and focus on this issue.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

A stream of destitute refugees arrives on European shores every day. Greece, Hungary and Italy have borne the brunt of this migration, but the ocean of displaced persons this year has already swamped their resources. It is a life and death crisis that demands an answer now.

Unfortunately, the European Union is neither accustomed to, nor organized in a fashion that allows for rapid decision making, especially when it comes to political problems like this. Something as knotty as what to do with the influx of over 500,000 illegal immigrants over the past year has taken European leaders out of their comfort zone.

Normally, a long process of consensus-building among EU members is necessary before political or economic decisions can be implemented. As an example, think of the time and effort that was necessary to bail out Greece. But this emergency won't wait. The drowning of hundreds of migrants in April, the discovery of a truckload of dead refugees in Austria last month and the recent front-page photo of a dead 3-year old immigrant in Turkey underscore the fact that political dithering means additional lives lost.

Faced with public outrage, the European Commission's President, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed a plan to redistribute 160,000 refugees across the European bloc. The plan must be approved by a qualified majority of EU governments. Even before countries vote on the plan, it is obvious to everyone that it falls far short of a solution considering the numbers of migrants expected to descend upon the continent.

Many of the immigrants are political refugees from the Middle East (mainly Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq). For several years, we have all watched on the nightly news the plight of these refugees living in squalid camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. At this point, however, these countries cannot take any more refugees, nor do they have the resources to care for those in the camps.

Lebanon, for example, has taken in one million refugees. Given that their entire population amounts to 4.5 million, the overload of immigrants is destroying that country. GDP is expected to decline 3 percent this year as the government and economy collapse under the weight of refugees. Faced with starvation or worse, many of these camp migrants are escaping to Europe with the help of smugglers.

Part of the problem within Europe is the routes used in smuggling these immigrants into the EU. The Mediterranean gives smugglers and others easy access to Italy and the Greek Islands. From there, refugees travel over land in pursuit of economic opportunity wherever they can find it. Countries such as Germany, Finland, France, Spain and Great Britain are attractive end points for these immigrants.

Faced with already high unemployment rates, slow to no-growth economies, and overburdened social spending programs in many cases, European countries are not in the kind of economic shape to support an influx of destitute migrants. Many governments (and voters) believe these new arrivals will simply add to the strain they are already feeling. In Eastern Europe, religious and cultural differences have created a backlash against accepting any migrants at all.

In addition, many European countries have little or no experience in accepting and processing refugees, which makes an EU Pan-European approach that much more difficult to implement.

Europe has faced and managed emergencies like this before. The Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and influx of Vietnamese "boat people" are just two that come to mind. Yet, the number of migrants seeking asylum in Europe today is higher than at any time since World War II. Meeting this challenge will test Europe like never before. Let's all hope that Europe's politicians are up to the task. Otherwise this crisis will only get much, much worse.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

United States demographics indicate that the senior population in this country is growing at twice the national average. As more and more Baby Boomers retire in the years ahead the demand for senior housing is set to skyrocket.

Independent living facilities, where the elderly are still active and relatively healthy, are driving the growth in the overall retirement market. Occupancy rates have reached 91.3 percent and the overall growth rate in this sector is averaging about 6 percent a year. Since seniors will represent 20 percent of the U.S. population by 2030, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, this segment of the housing market will continue to grow.

The demand for these communities will continue to rise by the 500,000 people a year who will hit the age of 65 in the years to come.

Although the vast majority of Americans over 50 years of age still want to remain in their homes indefinitely, that may not be possible as health and other factors force them into alternative living styles. And the so-called nursing home business has been given a bad rap (and deservedly so), thanks to decades of accounting scandals, operational issues, excessive debt and poor, regimented living conditions. The good news is that this industry, that so many of us fear, is actually getting a facelift.

Surviving players and new entrants in the senior living industry have acquired a better understanding of what make seniors happy. They have adapted programs and amenities that are starting to attract the elderly. Back in the 1960s, when retirement communities were first built, big was beautiful and some developments numbered 25,000 homes or more. Today, planned developments range from 20-30 units to as large as 300-400 units, but rarely larger than that.   

The cookie-cutter approach has all but disappeared and in its place is a focused customizing strategy that transforms each new resident’s experience within the senior living community into something uniquely their own. There is also a renewed emphasis on home ownership rather than renting, since 80 percent of seniors, age 65 and older, are accustomed to being homeowners rather than tenants and they want to keep it that way.

The senior housing market is normally divided into several categories ranging from active adult communities, which are typically condos, co-ops or single-family homes with minimum or no services offered to those who are less active and may have more difficulty with routine housekeeping might prefer independent living facilities that supply everything from meals to organized group activities.

Seniors who find themselves needing personalized support services but do not require nursing home care might choose multifamily properties in an assisted living facility. Skilled nursing facilities and continuing care retirement communities provide hospitallike levels of care mixed with large numbers of independent living and assisted living units.

However, the days of long institutional hallways filled with drab rooms and silent residents watching visitors walk by are long gone. Instead, expect to see beautiful resort-style communities that offer residents exercise classes, fitness rooms and amenities and services that you might see at a luxury resort or on a cruise ship. Monday it may be cooking classes offered by an in-house chef. Tuesday could be golf pro lessons on the community links. Some communities have their own broadcast stations, social media sites or newspapers, with residents taking an active part in producing the news or entertainment.

As the population grows older it is also growing smarter. For the most part, seniors are more educated than ever before. They know what the future holds and are more willing to take control now. Moving into a beautiful senior living community at a younger age is making more and more sense to a growing segment of the elderly population.  I expect that trend to continue.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.
 

Only four states have legalized marijuana for recreational use so far. Another 23 have given the nod for using cannabis for medical usage. Today it is a $2.7 billion industry that is set to grow substantially in the years ahead if more states jump on the band wagon.

Whether legalization is a fad or a trend in this country will have to wait until the next election cycle in 2016. Legalizing the drug will most likely be on the ballot in several more states. Researchers from California-based The ArcView Group, a cannabis investment and research firm, predicts that 14 more states will legalize marijuana while two more will legalize medical marijuana next year. In addition, at least 10 more states are "considering" legalization, according to them.

Since the latest polls by Gallup indicate that only a slim majority (51 percent) of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, those projections may prove to be overly-optimistic. If they did materialize, that would place legal marijuana as the fastest growing industry in the United States. To date, only four states — Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon — have developed a retail trade in legalized marijuana. D.C. has also legalized the drug, but sales are currently banned. Congressional Republicans have blocked the new law.

Remember, too, that the federal government still considers marijuana a dangerous drug (a Schedule 1 controlled substance like heroin or LSD). And clearly, there are a number of legislators that are bound and determined to keep it that way. As a result, if you are thinking of entering this business you should be aware of the drawbacks and political risks before ripping up the tomatoes and re-planting your back-yard with pot plants.

Since banks are federally regulated, very few of them are willing to loan newly minted pot entrepreneurs the seed money for a start-up (no pun intended). You can also forget credit card transactions as well. This is a purely cash business. Not only will you need your own startup capital, but without access to banking, you are going to need to pay your staff, your suppliers and even your taxes in cash.

There may be some longtime growers and users of marijuana out there that think they have an edge once pot is legal. That may prove to be an erroneous assumption. Legalization, like the end of Prohibition for alcohol, creates two opposing changes in growing and selling marijuana. It provides downward pressure on pot prices. The same ounce that sold for $300, may now only command $200. Second, the supply of marijuana suddenly expands considerably as new growers jump in.

In that kind of environment, quality of product becomes one of the critical factors in the sale and profitability of production. Competition is fierce. Those with the resources to grow their crop scientifically, using the best and latest bioscience, fertilizers and equipment will end up on top. All of that costs money and a lot of it.

In addition, you will need to brand, market and distribute your product. Handing off the "dime baggie" at your local park won't cut it. After all, you are trying to get on the ground floor of what you hope might be the next Wholefoods in the marijuana business. To do so, and do it profitably, is going to take a lot of business knowledge, retailing know-how and luck. Do you have what it takes?

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.