This is a compelling point, as many live in fear that their data is not only being shared, but is attached to their name in particular. We've all become abruptly aware of data sharing capabilities and how much of it is continuously taking place without our knowledge. And the point made here is that, even if your information is anonymous, it can still be shared, exploited, and used (credit card info, social security, etc). I have a couple of friends going to school for cybersecurity and I just talked to one of them about it the other day, so this quote about the dangers of even anonymous data sharing jumped out at me.

This is interesting to me in that this can be the result of so many different things. A college degree usually implies jobs with greater pay, and one could assume that a lot of high-paying jobs require a degree. So, it would make sense to some extent that children of college-educated parents are more likely to pursue an education themselves whereas the children in the lower quartile, on top of maybe not having the financial resources to attend college, may be persuaded by their parents to enter a field that doesn't require a degree. As well, children in the higher quartile have the option to attend college, whereas lower-income children may want to pursue education but, as previously stated, lack the financial aid to pursue a degree.

This is an interesting fact, and I would be curious to talk to my father (a military-to-commercial airline pilot) about it to maybe gain a little insight as to why this might be. This jumped out at me for a few reasons; growing up, I spent a lot of time with my father and his friends who were all mostly military pilots as well. From what I remember, the vast majority of the pilots were male, and the airline industry, as the article suggests, pulls heavily from seasoned military pilots, but at American Airlines, regardless of your past flight experience, once you graduate from their flight school, your seniority is reset to 0 as if you had never flown before. From there, your pay is decided by your seniority as well as how many hours you physically spend airborne (which can vary greatly from month-to-month, as choosing your monthly schedule is based entirely on seniority).For example, my father had a target of roughly 70 flight hours a month, but that ranged anywhere from 60 to 80 hours and is much easier to control after a few years as you work your way up the seniority chain.

In my military service, I knew a good amount of female pilots and it seemed like they were far more common than when I was a kid, which wasn't that long ago. Perhaps the airline industry will look to close the gap in pay as more female military pilots look to make the commercial transition.

I think that the topic and history of women in the workforce has always been an intriguing one. For starters, we have this idea of "republican motherhood" wherein the mother was seen as the primary educator of the children of the family (meaning the mother needed an education). In America in the early to mid-20th century, a woman's role was to stay at home, raise children, and perform routine housekeeping while the father was at work. This changed dramatically during WWII, where women took up the work force to compensate for the great number of men that left for war. Since then, there has been a conversation about women's rights in the workforce, namely the right to equal pay. There are many different ways that we determine how much more men get paid than women, one of which is a comparison of the proportion of men compared to women in the work force. This is why such jumps in participation rate are ideal looking forward; in a work force that is virtually equally shared between men and women, it will be harder to ignore gaps in pay and thus we will see greater efforts towards true equality in pay.

It is insane to think of the reach that these four companies have. In the instance of Google maps, I immediately thought of the app "Waze" as an alternative, but then remembered that Google bought the app and integrated it into Google Maps! It's a lot like thinking about the entertainment-based reach of Companies like Disney, who controls shares in ESPN, ABC, and even Hulu. Whether we see it or not, these four companies run almost everything that we do; I can search for cool sunglasses on Google, buy a pair on Amazon via my iPhone, then share my excitement on (the Facebook-owned) Instagram. As USC students, we rely solely on Google for most of our student apps (Gmail, docs, drive, etc).

For anyone that has shopped on Amazon, this is fairly evident if one decides to pay attention to it. Regardless of what you search, one will often find numerous similar items before arriving at the item that they are actually looking for, including Amazon's own "amazon basics" line that aims to be a cheaper version of what you're looking for, but sold by Amazon. This is a large range of items, including Amazon batteries!

Most can attest to how true this statement is; in 2009, it seemed like everybody and their mother had a Facebook page, and while many still do, Facebook is a shadow of what it once was in terms of mainstream popularity. I feel that this was evident when Zuckerberg faced backlash for his idea of a version of Facebook that would have you paying a monthly subscription to use the app. Nevertheless, Facebook has managed to stay afloat in the ever-changing media sphere with various avenues such as their acquisition of Instagram and their widely successful virtual reality platform "Oculus."

Since growing economic inequality is still fairly present in America, this is certainly a view that many hold true to this day. In an empirical sense, many point to the massive chunk of wealth that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has accrued as a result of the pandemic, and Amazon itself was already under fire for the intense working conditions of Amazon's warehouses (a direct correlation to the quote's assertion that great wealth doesn't come without harming others.

Free markets and globalization go hand-in-hand when we look at the level of interdependence between countries. No country is rich in every conceivable resource, therefore international trade becomes obligatory if a country wishes to keep up with the rest of the world. Of course, competition for resources becomes prominent, which explains the vast array of trade deals/agreements (i.e. NAFTA) that provide advantages to some and disadvantages to others.

So far, this passage seems to align directly with how many people assume politicians will act: actions are seldom taken outside of the realm of the self-interest of those in power. Throughout history, and even today, field experts, though advisors to powerful individuals or groups, are subject to selfish interests.