T.J. Maxx Follows Walmart's Lead And Raises Wages

Walmart isn’t the only retailer bumping its minimum wage to $9 an hour.

T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and other department stores owned by TJX Companies said Wednesday that they would increase pay for their lowest-paid workers to $9 an hour in June. The move comes six days after the world’s biggest retailer announced a similar raise for its employees.

Like Walmart, T.J. Maxx will bump pay to $10 an hour next year for workers who have been there at least six months.

Economists said Walmart's decision to give raises to about a third of its 1.4 million employees would put pressure on other low-wage employers to do the same.

“This pay initiative is an important part of our strategies to continue attracting and retaining the best talent in order to deliver a great shopping experience, remain competitive on wages in our U.S. markets, and stay focused on our value mission,” Carol Meyrowitz, TJX’s chief executive, said in a statement included with the company's fourth-quarter earnings.

Walmart stock fell nearly 3 percent after the company announced it was raising wages for its employees, but traders seem to be more welcoming to TJX's news.

One group of sales associates at T.J. Maxx, the company’s flagship store, have average earnings of $7.98 per hour, according to data submitted by workers to Glassdoor, a site that tracks wages and working conditions.

Retailers and fast-food companies have come under heightened pressure from employees and worker groups to increase their baseline pay as Congress has stalled any efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, which stands at a paltry $7.25.

Walmart's Raise Could Be A Turning Point For The Whole Economy

Walmart just gave half a million people a raise. Could you be next?

The retail giant announced on Thursday that it would increase the minimum pay for its workers to $10 an hour, affecting roughly a third of its 1.4 million employees.

The move is a sign that finally -- finally! -- the falling unemployment rate is putting pressure on companies to raise wages. The unemployment rate recently tumbled to 5.7 percent from a Great Recession high of 10 percent in 2009. Typically a better job market leads to people getting raises, but wages have been stubbornly slow to recover.

“This could be a turning point in the wage numbers,” Jim O’Sullivan, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, said of Walmart's announcement. “Bargaining power is shifting back toward workers.”

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon made a similar point in an interview with CNBC on Thursday.

"It's great to see the job market getting better, and the market works, so we're adjusting to that market," he said.

To be sure, these Walmart workers are among the lowest-paid workers in the economy. But such workers benefit the most from a small wage hike and will spend all of that extra money. Wage pressure at the bottom of the pay scale could influence wages throughout the job market.

And Walmart's move will put pressure on other retailers and low-wage employers to raise pay, some analysts and economists said.

"Wage increase could be imminent for other companies," Cowen & Co. analyst Oliver Chen wrote in a report cited by MarketWatch.

Target’s stock dropped on the news of its rival's pay increase, with investors presumably thinking it, too, would have to give its workers more money.

A spokesperson for Target said that the company already pays above the federal minimum wage at all its U.S. stores and declined to provide more specifics on pay.

Past studies have shown that, when Walmart moves into a location, it pulls down wages for other companies. Now that Walmart is raising pay, the retailer might have the opposite effect, suggested Catherine Ruetschlin, a Senior Policy Analyst at Demos, a public policy and advocacy group.

“Walmart is the largest retailer in the world; its practices set a standard for the rest of the retail industry,” Ruetschlin said.

-- This post has been updated with a comment from Target.

College Debt Is Crippling Black Graduates' Ability To Gain Wealth

Millions of Americans are plagued by student loans, an albatross hindering them from taking adult financial steps like buying a house or moving out of Mom and Dad’s basement. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Tuesday that outstanding student loan balances recently grew to $1.16 trillion in the U.S. But one group is disproportionately affected by student debt.

More than 40 percent of African-American families had student loan debt in 2013, compared with 28 percent of white families, according to an analysis by the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank studying issues of education, health policy and low-income families. African-American families also typically take on more student debt -- $10,295 on average, compared with an average of $8,020 for white families.

The student debt disparity is just one factor adding to a yawning gap in wealth between black and white Americans.

One big reason black families are more likely to borrow for college is because they’re less likely to have access to traditional sources of wealth such as inheritances, or wealth-creating tools such as homeownership, according to the Urban Institute. Once black students graduate, the extra debt may prevent them from activities that build wealth -- for example, buying a house or saving for retirement.

“Student loan debt can have ripple effects. It can delay when people buy their first home and when they begin to start saving seriously for their retirement,” said Signe-Mary McKernan, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “This disadvantage means that African-Americans are getting a late start in wealth accumulation.”

The Urban Institute analysis relies on data from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors' survey of consumer finances. One critique of the survey is that it underestimates total outstanding student loan debt.

One important caveat: The Urban Institute analysis relies on data from the Federal Reserve's survey of consumer finances. One critique of the survey is that it underestimates total outstanding student-loan debt. A recent New York Fed study found that lenders report higher levels of debt.

All students who weigh whether to borrow for college face a catch-22. Research shows it’s much harder to get a decent-paying job without a college degree, yet saddling oneself with loans can be daunting. Among African-American students, the choice can be particularly acute.

For one thing, African-American students are less likely to graduate from college, according to the Urban Institute, meaning they won't have a degree to help them land the kinds of jobs that will pay off loan debt. That, says the Institute, is in part because African-American students are more likely to attend for-profit colleges. Those schools often have lower graduation rates than nonprofit counterparts, and they’ve come under fire in recent years for not delivering on promises to get jobs for graduates.

And black students who do get a degree often face discrimination in finding a job. Recent black college graduates face an unemployment rate double that of their white counterparts, according to a 2014 analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that this may be due partly to a subconscious bias against black job applicants.

The first few years of a career are extremely important in determining how much money a person will make over their lifetime, and whether there will be enough to do things like buy a house or save for retirement. This combination of factors makes it especially difficult for black college graduates to gain wealth.

“That wealth translates into opportunity,” McKernan said.

Here's Proof You Don't Have To Sacrifice Sleep To Succeed

It's rare to get a company-wide email from your boss reminding you to sleep. But that’s exactly what happened last week to the employees at Lightspan Digital, a Chicago-based digital marketing agency.

Mana Ionescu, the president of the company, is a big fan of shut-eye and a devotee of celebrity fitness trainer Jillian Michaels. So when Michaels sent a message to her followers extolling the benefits of a good night’s sleep, Ionescu, 37, forwarded it along to her staff.

“I’m a huge advocate for sleep, and I prioritize it the same way I would prioritize going to the gym and seeing my friends,” said Ionescu, who aims for eight hours a night but estimates she gets closer to seven. “It’s so hard because it’s the thing that seems the easiest to sacrifice.”

Ionescu said she’s even been called lazy and weak after expressing her views about sleep. It’s easy to see why -- the American work culture seems to give more value to people who grind away at their jobs at the expense of sleep.

The business leaders who say they get by on very little sleep, such as Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne and Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, seem to get a lot more airtime than those who say the opposite. Everywhere are headlines about “19 Successful People Who Barely Sleep,” “Do history's greatest figures owe their success to sleeping LESS?” and “The secret of success: Needing less sleep?”

But sacrificing sleep could be hurting more than just the executives in need of a good night’s rest. When people don’t sleep, they don’t function at their highest levels, research shows. In a work context, that means missing opportunities to make money. American companies are losing $63.2 billion a year due to sleep deprivation, according to a 2013 study from Harvard Medical School.

That may be why a growing number of bosses, like Ionescu, are waking up (pun intended) to this reality and extolling the virtues of a decent night’s sleep. In the most prominent recent example, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told ABC News earlier this month that he sleeps on average eight hours a night. Other renowned business leaders including Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg have told interviewers in recent years they’ve realized the value in getting a good night’s sleep if they want to operate at their highest levels.

These leaders follow in the footsteps of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who have been bragging about their eight hours of rest a night at least since 1999, when they discussed their sleep habits with a Wall Street Journal reporter.

More and more research indicates that they’re taking the correct approach. Bosses can get mean and workers less productive when they don’t get a good night's sleep, according to one recent study. Sleep is such an important predictor of the ability to get our jobs done well that getting one extra hour a night can increase wages by 16 percent a year on average, according to a study by economics graduate students at the University of California at San Diego. That’s more than the boost from an extra year of education.

“Sleep is as important as water and food,” said Pat Byrne, the founder of Fatigue Science, a company that works with athletes and companies to help them use sleep to increase performance. But many people struggle to prioritize it.

It’s hard for people who sleep very little each night to detect the consequences, Byrne said, because after a while their bodies “re-norm” so they can continue to go through the motions during the day, even while they’re getting just four or five hours of sleep a night. But that doesn't mean the sleep-deprived person is functioning as well as he or she could be.

“It’s very insidious in that it creeps up on you,” Byrne said of the effects of a prolonged lack of sleep. That dynamic may explain why executives and others think they’re operating just fine on a prolonged lack of sleep.

Of course not everyone has the luxury of a good night’s sleep. Parents of young children and people scraping by on multiple jobs may find it difficult to get eight hours a night. But why is it so common for some of the most powerful people in the world to deprive themselves?

“One common approach to sleep is ‘I’m too dedicated to my job and too important to spend my time sleeping,’” said Christopher Barnes, a management professor at University of Washington’s Foster School of Business. Barnes’ research finds that when bosses get less sleep, they’re meaner to their employees, who end up disengaging from their work as a result.

“They might be partially correct, they might be doing really important stuff, but they might not be appreciating the fact that if they’re not getting enough sleep,” they’re probably not at their highest level, Barnes said.

Sabrina Parsons, the CEO of Palo Alto software, has a more blunt term for business leaders’ tendency to claim they survive on just a few hours of sleep a night: “Bravado bragging.” Parsons’ experience raising three young children taught her that functioning normally on a few hours of sleep a night is nearly impossible.

Now, Parsons tries to get seven or eight hours every night. She encourages her 55 employees to do the same, and to take breaks during the day to exercise or do other activities if they’re feeling sluggish.

She does this to keep workers from getting burned out -- and also to “call bullshit on everybody else” who claims to do their job well despite being sleep-deprived.

“I don’t think you really have someone who sleeps four hours every night for months and months and years and years, who is a functional person,” she said. “You’re not doing that, and if you are, then you’re not being productive.”

How The Boss May Be Quietly Pocketing Your Server's Tips

Laurie Zabawa says she'd been working at a Hilton Garden Inn in Bozeman, Montana, for seven years when the owners outsourced the management of the hotel in 2012. For Zabawa, the hotel's banquet manager, this meant that any parties that took place in the hotel would now be overseen by an outside firm, an Ohio-based company called Gateway Hospitality Group.

The banquet workers whom Zabawa oversaw weren't being let go, so the service-industry lifer says she took the change in stride -- that is, until Gateway explained the new policy on gratuities.

By tradition, when clients of the hotel ran up banquet tabs, they'd be subject to an automatic gratuity of 18 to 20 percent. That money was then distributed among the waiters, bartenders and other food workers who handled the event, according to Zabawa. For workers earning close to minimum wage, these tips could equal half their base pay, and they were essential to making a living.

But according to Zabawa and a lawsuit she's filed in Montana state court, after Gateway took over, the automatic gratuity was renamed a "service" or "setup" fee, and the house stopped distributing that money to staff. Zabawa claims that workers were told to sign papers accepting a new flat wage that didn't include gratuities. Most workers were given a nominal raise of about $1 per hour, but it didn't come close to making up for the lost tips, she says.

As banquet manager, Zabawa says she was tasked with implementing the new policy.

"It was awful," Zabawa, 50, told The Huffington Post. "Just imagine working there with those people for years. They were my family. It was horrible to go through, and I had no options."

Zabawa claims she was pressured to quit her job after telling management she believed the new policy violated Montana wage laws. She is suing over what she deems wrongful termination, and she's asked the court to declare the hotel's use of service fees illegal.

Hilton and the hotel's operator, Bozeman Lodging Investors, did not respond to requests for comment about Zabawa's allegations. Bob Voelker, Gateway's CEO and a Hilton veteran, told HuffPost he would not comment on ongoing litigation. According to the company's website, Gateway has contracts with at least 17 Hilton-brand properties in four states.

In the service industry, it's become fairly common for the house to present customers with a charge that's implied to be a tip for the workers -- only to turn around and keep that money for itself. Such add-on costs often come in the guise of a "service" fee, and the charge tends to match what most of us would associate with a typical gratuity.

For businesses, these fees often function as a surreptitious price increase, allowing them to charge customers more while maintaining the same base price. Though these fees don't go to workers, people like Zabawa believe their presence makes customers assume that the bartenders, servers and others who rely on tips have somehow been covered.

"I had employees who quit," Zabawa said. "They just weren't willing to work there anymore."

Zabawa's employees weren't the only workers feeling burned by such fees. In 2010, catering employees who worked the U.S. Open at Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York sued the concessions company there for allegedly pocketing a 21 percent service fee that was tacked onto customers' bills. The workers, who also claimed they were shorted on overtime pay, argued that the service fee was portrayed as a gratuity. The class-action lawsuit was settled in 2013 for $600,000.

As HuffPost reported in 2011, beer and hot dog vendors at New York's Yankee Stadium claimed they were victims of a similar scheme. The stadium's concessionaire, Legends Hospitality, was attaching a 20 percent service fee to the drink and food orders in the stadium's luxury boxes, but the vendors who sold those orders were only taking in 4 to 6 percent in commission. According to a lawsuit filed by the vendors, the remainder of that 20 percent fee was going to Legends, which, at the time, was jointly owned by the New York Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys and the investment bank Goldman Sachs. (After it was sued, Legends made clear on its menus that only a small portion of the fee went to servers.)

The practice has even made its way into the pizza delivery business. As HuffPost reported last year, Pizza Hut, Papa John's and Domino's now commonly tack nominal "delivery fees" onto the tabs of delivery orders. Those fees, which are usually between $1.50 and $3 a pop, do not go to the drivers, even though many customers forego a driver tip believing that they do. Many career drivers told HuffPost they believe the practice has helped depress wages in their field.

HuffPost readers: Do you work in a job where "service fees" do not go to workers? Tell us about it.

One former catering worker at the U.S. Open said the use of service fees not only hurts workers' paychecks, but also creates confusion and tension among clients.

"In this industry, it happens a lot. A client will have the assumption that the service fee is indicative of some type of gratuity going to the employee," said the worker, who asked to remain anonymous due to the litigation. "They're feeling that they're already being forced to pay a tip. A strange sort of animosity can build up between the client and the server."

Several states have recognized the problems stemming from service fees and tried to address them in their own ways, with laws now on the books in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York and Washington state.

In Hawaii, any hotel or restaurant that tacks on a service fee is required to distribute that fee in full to employees. A similar statute in Massachusetts applies the same rule to the service industry at large, while also barring management from sharing in employee tip pools. In Washington state, service fees may be used, but receipts must show clearly how much of the fee goes to employees.

Recently, the hotel workers' union Unite Here has worked to insert language into local wage laws to ensure that service fees stay with workers. According to the minimum wage ordinance passed last year in Los Angeles, which established a $15 wage floor for large hotels in the city, any such fee belongs to the workforce, regardless of what management chooses to call it -- be it a "service charge," a "delivery charge" or a "porterage" fee, to name a few examples.

The Montana law, which would cover Zabawa's hotel, defines a service fee as "an arbitrary fixed charge added to the customer's bill by an employer in lieu of a tip." According to state code, such a fee "must be distributed directly to the nonmanagement employee preparing or serving the food or beverage or to any other employee involved in related services."

"Defendants admit they do not provide the 20% arbitrary fee to the nonmanagement staff members," Zabawa's lawyer, Jason Armstrong, wrote in a court filing, referring to Gateway and Bozeman Lodging Investors. "The question then becomes one of law; is the policy legal or not under the law?"

According to Zabawa, the hotel lost many of its servers under the new gratuity policy, since for them it effectively translated to a pay cut. Zabawa said she was simply instructed to hire new employees.

After workers lost their tips, one of the servers brought the language of the Montana statute to Zabawa, she claims in her lawsuit. Zabawa, in turn, took the server's concerns to a manager for Gateway. Zabawa alleges in her suit that she was then instructed to "write up" the "problem employee" and fire her. Zabawa says she refused.

Zabawa says she then lost her position as banquet manager and was switched to a sales job. In her lawsuit, she argues that leaving "was the only reasonable alternative" at that point. Under Montana law, such a voluntary termination could still be considered wrongful discharge if the employer created an intolerable situation.

After eight years at the hotel, Zabawa wound up working part-time at Pier 1 Imports before finding a new job in banquet work. Her income has taken a sharp drop, she says, but that's something she's managed to live with.

"I go to sleep at night knowing that I'm not apologizing [to my employees] and that I'm not sorry every day," she said.

Sparkling Water Is The New Soda

The hottest drink in America is water with bubbles.

Long a kitchen table staple in European households, sparkling water is making inroads in the U.S. thanks largely to Americans’ waning interest in soda. Between 2009 and 2014, the volume of carbonated bottled water sold in the U.S. has increased by 56.4 percent, according to data from Euromonitor International, a market research firm. Soda drinking declined sharply during the same period.

Still, sparkling water sales are a fraction of soda sales. The U.S. soda market is worth about $39 billion, according to Euromonitor. The market for unflavored sparkling water, flavored sparkling water and "functional" water -- a category that includes flavored still water and enhanced still water like Smartwater -- is just $4 billion.

It has a way to go before it catches up to soda, but sparkling water is indeed having a moment.

The growth in millions of liters of sparkling water sold in the U.S.

The decline in millions of liters of soda sold in the U.S. Note that the scale is very different from the chart above, with soda sales still dwarfing sparkling water sales.

Americans’ growing obsession with health is the biggest reason for the shift, according to Jonas Feliciano, a global beverage analyst at Euromonitor. Coke and Pepsi have resorted to hawking products like energy drinks and even milk to boost sales as Americans become increasingly wary of the high levels of sugar in soda.

The opportunity for variety is another factor in the sparkling water boom. These beverages are available in a range of flavors, from orange-pineapple to kiwi-strawberry. Feliciano noted that most mainstream soda comes in just cola and lemon-lime flavors. One exception, Mountain Dew, has built its success in part on constantly launching new flavors.

“[Americans] are turning away from things that identify with soda and instead are turning toward things that identify with water,” Feliciano said. “If I’m looking for health and I’m looking for variety, sparkling water with different flavors seems to provide that.”

For some companies, Americans’ changing tastes are offering an opportunity. The growth in sales at Washington-based Talking Rain Beverage Company, which makes flavored sparkling water, has pretty much directly mirrored the rise of the beverage's popularity. The company brought in more than $384 million in sales in 2014 compared to just $2.7 million in 2009. Sparkling Ice, a Talking Rain line of zero-calorie sparkling water in flavors like pink grapefruit and peach nectarine, is responsible for most of that growth.

Kevin Klock, Talking Rain’s CEO, says the company doesn’t try to make health claims about its drinks because shoppers recognize on their own that sparkling water is probably healthier than soda.

“It’s great that it’s zero calories, but it’s probably not the number one thing the consumer is looking for,” Klock said. “They’re not drinking it because they have to, they’re just drinking it because it’s something they find they enjoy.”

Sparkling Ice on display in New York.

Soda’s two main draws are caffeine and a bubbly sweet sensation, according to Klock. As concerns about soda’s health consequences mount, drinkers are turning to coffee and energy drinks for their caffeine fix, and flavored sparkling waters for that throat-tickling combination of bubbles and sweetness.

“I don’t see it as a fad,” Klock said of flavored sparkling water, noting that the trend in all beverages, including liquor and beer, is toward more variety and flavor.

SodaStream is betting big that interest in sparkling water continues to grow. The at-home carbonation machine company has shifted its marketing in recent months to focus more on the product's ability to make sparkling water and less on its ability to make soda. SodaStream rebranded its devices as sparkling-water makers instead of soda makers, and it has changed its slogan from “set the bubbles free” to “water made exciting.”

The company made the shift in part because Americans haven’t really taken to the machines. In the U.S., SodaStream is probably better known for its Scarlett Johansson commercials than for its carbonation device. So far, just 1.5 percent of households in the U.S. have a SodaStream, compared to about 20 percent of households in Finland or Sweden, according to Daniel Birnbaum, SodaStream’s CEO.

SodaStream's 2014 Super Bowl ad.

Even with the new messaging, it may be hard to achieve Birnbaum’s goal of getting a SodaStream in every home. Feliciano notes that low-income shoppers aren’t likely to make the switch from soda to sparkling water anytime soon. Even those who don't shell out for a SodaStream machine -- the cheapest option on the company's website is $79.99 -- will probably find better deals on soda than sparkling water.

While there's not that much difference in the average price per liter ($1.10 per liter for soda versus $1.30 per liter for sparkling water, according to Euromonitor), the supermarkets, discount outlets and convenience stores where most low-income Americans shop offer promotional deals on soda that often make it much cheaper than sparkling water, according to Feliciano.

“This is still not for the masses,” Feliciano said.

But Birnbaum is confident that Americans' shift away from soda is more than just a whim.

“We feel like we are now at the early stages of a revolution in the beverage industry in America,” Birnbaum said, noting that about 70 percent of SodaStream’s customers globally use the machine only for carbonating water.

“The death of soda comes with the life of something else,” Birnbaum said.

One Peruvian Woman Is Standing Up To A Gold-Mining Goliath

This story was reported with Roxana Olivera, a Toronto-based investigative journalist living in Peru.

SOROCHUCO, Peru -- On a remote farm deep in the Peruvian Andes, in a region where sheep outnumber people by a comfortable margin, a very small woman is foiling the plans of one of the biggest mining companies in the world.

Máxima Acuña, who stands just over 5 feet tall -- if one includes in the measurement the traditional wide-brimmed hat she almost always wears -- has withstood threats, beatings and legal challenges in her improbable bid to hang on to what she declares is her property: 67 acres of windswept grass framed by rolling hills and several high mountain lakes.

Last week, dozens of private security officers working for Minera Yanacocha, a Peruvian company that is majority owned by Newmont Mining Corp. of Denver, ripped apart the foundation of a new home the family was building as Acuña stood nearby, crying.

The cause of the conflict is the same that has haunted Peru since Spanish conquistadors first landed on its shores 500 years ago. There is gold on Acuña’s land. Or, more accurately, under it: at least 6 million ounces, here and on adjacent property, according to Newmont.

The company wants to build a $4.8 billion mine, known as Conga, to extract the precious ore. Buenaventura, a Peruvian company, and the International Finance Corp., the private-lending arm of the World Bank., hold minority stakes in the project, which is meant to replace a depleted mine nearby.

Acuña’s neighbors seem to have gotten the message that standing in the way of such a lucrative development is a losing proposition. They are long gone. But Acuña, who is 44, and her husband, Jaime Chaupe, have declared they won’t be intimidated into leaving.

“The Yanacocha clan can hire all the lawyers in the world, but let them produce documents to show that I sold them my land," Máxima Acuña said recently. "They claim that I am squatting on their property. They claim that they are the legitimate owners, but they don’t show any papers that indicate that I sold them my land.”

Newmont says it purchased the Acuña property and surrounding acreage from the local community in 1997. Peruvian courts have twice affirmed its ownership, the company says.

Stories of individual resistance to lucrative construction projects in developing nations rarely end well for the stubborn holdout.

Acuña claims Yanacocha and its security forces, as well as allied police, have engaged in a campaign of harassment. In 2011, Peruvian police moved onto the disputed property and beat Acuña and her daughter "without compassion," Acuña told the New Internationalist in an interview the next year.

In more recent years, even as local activist leaders leading the fight against the mine adopted her as their spiritual leader -- at one point, she was even flown to Paris for an event -- the endgame seemed to grow near. A 2012 court decision seemed to seal the family's fate. The Acuñas, the judge declared, were squatters. Another court ruling in 2014 affirmed the same thing, the company says.

In December, however, a judge in Cajamarca, the regional capital, threw out a criminal complaint that Yanacocha, backed by Newmont, had filed against the Acuñas. The family and their attorneys from a nonprofit legal group for indigenous people celebrated the ruling as vindication that their claim to the land was valid. (In Peru, private parties can sue alleging criminal conduct, unlike in the United States, where such claims are reserved for government authorities).

The Acuñas live in a tiny grass and earth hut, highly vulnerable to the cold that is a steady presence at these high altitudes of more than 12,000 feet. In January -- mid-summer in the Southern Hemisphere -- they started to build a new home a few hundred feet away.

On Feb. 5, Yanacocha dispatched its security forces to the site. They wore face masks and carried riot shields.

What exactly happened next isn’t clear. Photographs taken by the company’s agents and posted on Yanacocha’s website depict the security forces facing off against two young men.

Acto de defensa posesoria se llevó sin violencia de nuestra parte http://t.co/ffRWb49kW3 pic.twitter.com/EDhyGX0jEf

— Minera Yanacocha (@MineraYanacocha) February 3, 2015

A photo tweeted from Yanacocha's account shows two people who appear to be throwing dirt or rocks.

Eventually, the security forces ripped apart the house's foundation, and left.

Newmont claims the new house was being built on Yanacocha land, outside the bounds of the property the Acuñas claim as their own. The December court decision changed nothing with respect to earlier rulings that confirmed its ownership of the property, the company says.

"Yanacocha remains committed to demonstrating respect for human rights and host communities, and will continue to seek measures to minimize conflict," Newmont spokesman Omar Jabara said in an email. "At the same time, the company will take respectful, lawful and prudent measures to manage its lands safely, and prevent future -- and new -- unauthorized occupation on company property."

The family and their attorney claim the structure was on Acuña property.

[ENVIVO]Conferencia de prensa de Yanacocha en #Cajamarca sobre defensa posesoria, síguela aquí http://t.co/3x7W4owLuX pic.twitter.com/QDQAB0rGbA

— Minera Yanacocha (@MineraYanacocha) February 4, 2015

Another photo of the confrontation, tweeted from the Yanacocha account. The foundation of the planned Acuña home that mine security destroyed is in the foreground; the family's current house is in the distance.

In Peru, the incident has dominated the news cycle, provoking condemnation even from some media outlets traditionally seen as business-friendly. At a press conference earlier this week, the father of Peru's president declared that Acuña is a "heroine" for standing up to the mine.

For Newmont, the episode is another public relations mess in a region where its reputation is already tattered. For more than 20 years, it has pulled gold out of the ground of a huge mine near Conga, a development local peasant farmers blame for polluting their water and land.

In 2012, Peruvian police shot and killed five people protesting Conga, including a teenage boy. In the aftermath, Newmont declared that Conga was on indefinite hold while it builds reservoirs meant to replace water lost when several mountain lakes at the Conga site are dug up. There is no time frame on when the project will start up again, but Newmont has said it wants to marshall public support first.

Now, Newmont faces the prospect of more protests and turmoil. In Lima last week, a group gathered in support of Acuna outside of Yanacocha headquarters. Lynda Sullivan, an activist who lives in the town of Celendin, near the proposed Conga site, said organizers are attempting to stage a similar rally outside of Newmont's Denver headquarters on Thursday, and at Peruvian embassies around the world.

For Acuña, the mantle of resistance hero is weighing heavy. She recently sought medical treatment for symptoms relating to exhaustion and stress. In recent days, her family has sought to deflect a swarm of reporters seeking interviews.

But this past weekend, she talked with a visiting journalist and issued one of the defiant declarations that have endeared her to supporters.

"Yanacocha wants to have my land for free,” she said, her eyes swelling with tears. “But I will not leave my land. I am the rightful owner of this land. I have property papers to prove it. God is my witness.”

How The Post Office Could Take On The Payday Loan Industry

With the idea of postal banking becoming more mainstream in the U.S., the head of the largest union of postal workers says he plans to make a revived banking service part of his union's upcoming contract talks with the U.S. Postal Service.

Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), told The Huffington Post that postal banking -- when post offices also offer simple banking services like checking and savings accounts -- is "an idea that should be reborn and whose time has come."

"Basic postal banking is done in many countries around the world, and in many of those countries it's a revenue-driver for the post office," Dimondstein said. "We think it's a win-win-win situation. It's great for the public. It's great for the post office. And it's great for postal workers."

Dimondstein's plans to make postal banking part of contract talks were first reported by Salon's David Dayen.

The U.S. Postal Service once offered simple banking services to the public, but federal reforms abolished the services in 1966. With the postal service now facing a drop in first-class mail and costly mandates from Congress, the notion of restoring banking has been bandied about as a way to get the agency on more solid footing while extending some basic services to underbanked communities.

In particular, it's been pitched as a potential alternative to the high-interest payday loans that poorer Americans rely on.

Last year, the postal service's Office of the Inspector General recommended that the agency consider offering check cashing, money transfers and modest loans to customers who don't have their own banks. The idea has gained currency not only with postal service boosters, but also with critics of Wall Street, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

In an op-ed last year, Warren argued that the postal service is the one organization with "the public mission, the infrastructure, the experience and the well-trained employees needed to help address this problem" of predatory lending aimed at the poor.

One interested party that hasn't endorsed the concept of postal banking is the postal service itself. Patrick Donahoe, the postmaster general until earlier this month, "scoffed" at the idea during a press conference late last year, according to the Associated Press. "Our role is delivery," not banking, Donahoe said.

It isn't apparent yet how receptive Donahoe's replacement, Megan J. Brennan, might be to reviving postal banking services. Asked whether the agency's new management would entertain such a discussion, an agency spokeswoman said, "We'll just have to wait and see what's addressed during the negotiation process" with the union.

The divide over postal banking is part of a broader philosophical disagreement over the future of the post office. Heading an agency faced with red ink -- most of it due to a requirement imposed by Congress that the agency pre-fund retirement benefits years in advance -- Donahoe sought more latitude to streamline the postal service, pushing proposals that would eliminate Saturday delivery and close more mail processing facilities.

Postal unions have staunchly opposed such moves and argued that they will lead to the so-called death spiral, in which reduced services inevitably lead to the agency's demise.

APWU will begin negotiations for a new contract with the postal service next week, and the union expects the agency to seek concessions in employee health and retirement benefits -- a common feature in nearly all union contract talks these days. Though it isn't clear how postal banking could fit into such a contract, Dimondstein said he believes the negotiations will provide a good opportunity to put the proposal before postal management.

"We think it's most appropriate that the needs of [postal customers] are talked about at the bargaining table," Dimondstein said. "And I can tell you this: I haven't met a single person -- though I don't run into Wall Street bankers often -- who think this is a bad idea."

Japan Is Considering Making Vacation Mandatory. The U.S. Should, Too

Japan wants to cut off its workaholics, and America could learn a thing or two from the proposal.

A measure slated to come before Japan’s parliament sometime in the next four months will require workers to use at least five of their 10 guaranteed paid vacation days per year. The United States, where many employees leave vacation days unused or don't have any at all, might do well to craft a similar model for its workers, even if Americans' reasons for ignoring paid time off are quite different from those of Japanese wage earners.

Overworking is a chronic problem in Japan. In the 1990s, the term for sudden death caused by exhaustion and overwork became a household name: karoshi.

Group identity is deeply ingrained in many facets of the ethnically homogenous country's culture, and Japanese workers are afraid of letting their colleagues down by voluntarily taking time off, says Paul Jaffe, a former longtime resident of Japan and consultant at Japanese Intercultural Consulting.

“People tend to not want to put burdens on other people and not push their own benefit ahead of others,” Jaffe told The Huffington Post. “It’s very common for people to have vacation days they don’t take.”

To convince workers to spend time away from the office, the Japanese government has created more national holidays in recent years. If the whole team is encouraged to take the day off, the thinking goes, then individuals will. But public holidays do not guarantee paid time off, so they may act as more of a nudge than a push. Now, the government hopes mandatory time off will help foster a culture in which workers prioritize their free time and expect colleagues to do so, too.

Many workers in the United States also leave unused vacation days on the table. About 40 percent of Americans didn’t plan to take all of their time off last year, according to a survey from the U.S. Travel Association and GfK, a market research firm. More than 20 percent of workers said the main reason was fear that their absence would prove them to be replaceable.

A survey released last month found almost 42 percent of Americans didn’t take a single vacation day in 2014. This Google Consumer Surveys report, published for travel website Skift, also found that women tended to use fewer vacation days than men, and that employees in younger age ranges were going light on vacation days.

A federal policy for mandatory time off, similar to what is being proposed in Japan, might allay the fears of workers spooked about losing their jobs for spending time away from the office. It would be a big step, though. As it stands, the U.S. is the only advanced economy that doesn’t require companies to offer paid leave.

This 2007 chart, showing how the U.S. doesn't require vacation days, really highlights "American exceptionalism" at its worst.

Still, Americans are less likely than Japanese workers to spend countless hours in the office.

“I’ve heard Japanese executives here [in the U.S.] ask questions like, ‘Why do Americans go home so early?’” Jaffe recalled. “They haven’t grasped fully the situation here, the family situation, the sociological situation where people have kids and they have to go pick them up from school.”

For now, it's unclear whether Japan's mandatory vacation measure will pass.

The core of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's platform has been economic reform measures -- dubbed "Abenomics" -- meant to jumpstart Japan's anemic economy. Mandatory paid leave could be part of that: Workers forced to spend time out of the office may spend more money shopping, stimulating commerce throughout the country.

Motoatsu Sakurai, president of the nonprofit Japan Society and a former Japanese ambassador to the U.S., likens this proposed social engineering to some affirmative action policies in the States. He said that setting quotas for the number of racial minorities and women admitted to colleges or hired at companies makes institutions see, and ultimately depend on, the benefits of diversity.

“It helps eliminate these kinds of extreme cases of social issues,” Sakurai told HuffPost. “For Japan, when people get used to it, nobody will want to have less holidays.”

Here's A List Of RadioShack Stores Slated To Close By March 31

RadioShack as we know it is dead.

The electronics retailer, which filed for bankruptcy protection last week, will sell up to 2,400 stores. Many of those stores are slated to stay open and be operated by Sprint. The rest of the stores are scheduled to shut down.

Store closures will start as soon as February 17, according to court documents. In total, 1,784 stores could potentially close by the end of March.

Below is RadioShack's "potential store closure list," which can be found on the company's website. The list is grouped by sale termination date (ie. when the stores are planning to close), with the first bunch of stores scheduled to close on February 17, the second group scheduled to close on February 28, and the third group scheduled to close on March 31.

According to The Wall Street Journal, liquidation sales have already begun. Head on over to the WSJ's site for a searchable map of which RadioShack locations are planning to close.

RadioShack did not immediately respond to The Huffington Post's request for comment.

RS Store Closure List

Wegmans Ranked No. 1 For Company Reputation

People love Wegmans.

The Rochester, New York-based grocer has unseated Amazon as the firm with the best corporate reputation among a list of 100 highly visible companies, according to an annual Nielsen poll released this week.

“To be recognized in this way is just incredible,” Danny Wegman, the company’s chief executive, said in a statement. “It always starts with our people, who thrill our customers every day and extend a family feeling in our stores across six states.”

In an age where social media anthropomorphizes products -- from toilet paper to body wash -- branding matters. And although Wegmans has only 85 stores, the company has built a cult following online. Fans applaud the supermarket's decent wages, wide selection of prepared foods and reasonable prices.

Amazon ranked second in the Nielsen poll, followed by Samsung, Costco, Johnson & Johnson and Kraft Foods. The company with the worst reputation on the list was Goldman Sachs.

To determine the rankings in the Harris Poll Reputation Quotient study, evaluated annually for the last 16 years, Nielsen conducted an online survey in English of 27,278 U.S. respondents between Oct. 20 and Dec. 18.

This Is The Ultimate Routine For A Perfect Work Day

You might think the perfect workday includes a promotion or a raise, or perhaps your evil boss getting fired. Sadly, such monumental events don't happen very often.

The good news is that there are plenty of little things you can do to improve both your productivity and your happiness if you feel stuck at your desk all day.

One simple trick is to structure your time better -- which includes taking more breaks. In fact, the highest performers work for 52 minutes consecutively before taking a 17-minute break, according to a recent experiment conducted by the productivity app DeskTime.

Other helpful habits are even easier to pick up: Just going outside or taking a few minutes to watch the latest cute cat video can help make you a better worker.

Sure, you might realistically not have enough time to incorporate all these suggestions in your daily routine, but every little bit helps. That's why we've pulled together research and anecdotal evidence from a variety of sources to build the perfect workday.

Check out HuffPost's perfect workday below:

See tips on how to set up your workspace here:

Plants

How to pick the perfect plant for your office >>

What the perfect office looks like >>

Office Set-Up

Desk

How to set up your desk >>

Infographic by Alissa Scheller for The Huffington Post.

Colorado May Have To Refund As Much As $30 Million In Pot Taxes

DENVER (AP) — Colorado's marijuana experiment was designed to raise revenue for the state and its schools, but a state law may put some of the tax money directly into residents' pockets, causing quite a headache for lawmakers.

The state constitution limits how much tax money the state can take in before it has to give some back. That means Coloradans may each get their own cut of the $50 million in recreational pot taxes collected in the first year of legal weed. It's a situation so bizarre that it's gotten Republicans and Democrats, for once, to agree on a tax issue.

Even some pot shoppers are surprised Colorado may not keep the taxes that were promised to go toward school construction when voters legalized marijuana in 2012.

"I have no problem paying taxes if they're going to schools," said Maddy Beaumier, 25, who was visiting a dispensary near the Capitol.

But David Huff, a 50-year-old carpenter from Aurora, said taxes that add 30 percent or more to the price of pot, depending on the jurisdiction, are too steep.

"I don't care if they write me a check, or refund it in my taxes, or just give me a free joint next time I come in. The taxes are too high, and they should give it back," Huff said.

Legal weed has collided with the tax limitation movement because a 1992 voter-approved constitutional amendment called the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights requires all new taxes to go before voters.

The amendment also requires Colorado to pay back taxpayers when the state collects more than what's permitted by a formula based on inflation and population growth. Over the years, Colorado has issued refunds six times, totaling more than $3.3 billion.

Republicans and Democrats say there's no good reason to put pot taxes back into people's pockets, and state officials are scrambling to figure out how to avoid doling out the money. It may have to be settled by asking Colorado voters, for a third time, to cast a ballot on the issue and exempt pot taxes from the refund requirement.

Republicans concede that marijuana is throwing them off their usual position of wanting tax dollars returned to taxpayers. But they also tend to say that marijuana should pay for itself — that general taxes shouldn't pay for things like increased drug education and better training for police officers to identify stoned drivers.

"I think it's appropriate that we keep the money for marijuana that the voters said that we should," said Republican Senate President Bill Cadman. His party opposes keeping other refunds based on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights but favors a special ballot question on pot taxes.

"This is a little bit of a different animal. There's a struggle on this one," said Sen. Kevin Grantham, one of the Republican budget writers.

After legalizing marijuana in 2012, Colorado voters returned to the polls the following year and approved a 15 percent excise tax on pot for the schools and an additional 10 percent sales tax for lawmakers to spend.

Voters were told those taxes would generate about $70 million in the first year. The state now believes it will rake in about $50 million.

But because the economy is improving and other tax collections are growing faster, Colorado is obligated to give back much of what it has collected. Final numbers aren't ready, but the governor's budget writers predict the pot refunds could amount to $30.5 million, or about $7.63 per adult in Colorado.

"It's just absurd," said Democratic state Sen. Pat Steadman, one of the Legislature's budget writers.

The head-scratching extends to Colorado's marijuana industry. Several industry groups actively campaigned for the pot taxes but aren't taking a position on whether to refund them.

Mike Elliott of the Denver-based Marijuana Industry Group said it isn't pushing for lower taxes, but that's an option lawmakers don't seem to be considering. State law doesn't bar lawmakers from cutting taxes without a vote.

Lawmakers have a little time to figure out how to proceed. They'll consider pot refunds and a separate refund to taxpayers of about $137 million after receiving final tax estimates that are due in March.

When they talk about pot refunds, they'll have to figure out if the money would go to all taxpayers, or just those who bought pot. Previous refunds have generally been paid through income tax returns, but Colorado also has reduced motor vehicle fees or even reduced sales taxes on trucks.

Lawmakers seem confident that the refund mechanism won't matter because voters would approve pot taxes a third time if asked.

"This is what the voters want, and if we're going to have (pot), and the constitution says it's legal, we damn well better tax it," Steadman said.

Clarification: A Huffington Post headline has been amended to reflect that overall tax revenues, rather than a surfeit of marijuana-specific tax revenues, would trigger the refund under current law.

Uber Can't Really Prove That It's Caused A Reduction In Drunk Driving Accidents

Last week Uber revealed another way the ridesharing service is revolutionizing travel: Cities that use Uber see a reduction in drunk driving accidents among young people, a company report showed.   

"When empowered with more transportation options like Uber, people are making better choices that save lives," the company declared.

David Plouffe 2013 President Obama's former campaign manager who is now filling the same role for Uber 2013 emailed millions of users to share the astounding news. "Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30," Plouffe wrote. "That's 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years."

What is Uber's evidence that they "likely prevented" so many crashes?

Not much.  

Indeed, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which co-authored the report, cautioned us against connecting the rise of Uber to a drop in drunk driving. "Nobody is saying that there is a causation relationship here, this is a correlation relationship. Purely correlational," said Amy George, senior vice president of marketing and communications for MADD. (MADD took a less cautious stance in a  press release last week: New Report from MADD, Uber Reveals Ridesharing Services Important Innovation to Reduce Drunk Driving.)

Uber's report has two key graphics: The first shows alcohol-involved crashes in California markets where Uber operates. The second shows the same, but in cities where there is no Uber service. Each graph compares accidents between under-30 and 30-and-over drivers. The charts actually show, in general, a downward trend of drunk driving accidents in both Uber and non-Uber markets.

But Uber and Plouffe are hanging their assertion on another facet of the analysis: drunk driving crashes for those under 30 have dropped more in cities that have Uber versus those that don't.

 

"We believe there is a direct relationship between the presence of uberX (Uber's lowest-cost option) in a city and the amount of drunk driving crashes involving younger populations," the report says.

That could be. But we don't really know, and neither does Uber.

 

Uber does not provide evidence in its report that Uber users and those under 30 are the same population. A methodology shared with us by Uber asserts that their users are generally younger and more technologically savvy. MADD's George said they sent the data analysis to an outside research group for extra vetting. She declined to name the group because they were not formally part of the report.

Michael Amodeo, an Uber spokesperson, sent us a statement in response to questions about the analysis:

"We believe the results of the study are an encouraging step in the right direction and provide evidence that ridesharing services like Uber are making a meaningful and positive impact on mindsets and the rate of drunk driving. We attempt to deal with other factors in our study by breaking out the under 30 and over 30 groups, and we're comparing them against each other."

Uber's report credits an analysis by Nate Good, who is chief technology officer for an online ticketing company as well as an amateur statistician and self-described ridesharing proponent. Uber's report reads: "Inspired by Nate Good's analysis -- which demonstrated a clear downward trend in alcohol-related crashes in Pennsylvania's youngest cohort once ridesharing was available -- we decided to replicate that study in California at large using data procured from the State."

However, Good's study had nothing to do with "alcohol-related crashes." Good analyzed DUI arrests. "That was a poor choice of words on Uber's part," Good told us.

Good was careful to note various caveats of his analysis. No 1 on his list: "Correlation does not equate to causation." No. 2: "I am a computer science professional and a data science enthusiast, but by no means a statistician."

Good said he attempted to analyze alcohol-involved crash data but could not find a reliable data source.

We've also reached out to Plouffe, but haven't heard back yet.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

Lots Of Credit Reports Have Mistakes. But Good Luck Getting Yours Fixed.

Erica Alvarez’s life was turned upside down in 2011, when a handful of overdue hospital bills showed up on her credit report. Interest rates for her credit cards skyrocketed. She got turned down for a car loan, an apartment and multiple student loans.

But Alvarez, a 29-year-old doctor and resident of Washington, D.C., says the bills aren’t hers. She says the charges are from the maternity ward of a hospital in Texas that she’s never been to.

What’s more, Alvarez has never given birth.

Outstanding debts on your credit report damage your credit rating, that three-digit number that plays a key role in many Americans' financial lives. Lenders, creditors, insurers, landlords and utility companies use your credit rating to determine how financially responsible you are. A bad rating can mean you'll have to pay thousands of dollars more to borrow money.

Studies have found that tens of millions of Americans have mistakes on their reports. And those errors can be long-lived. A study by the Federal Trade Commission released last week found that about 12 percent of all U.S. consumers dispute items on their reports that they believe to be inaccurate, but never see those inaccuracies fixed. Consumer advocates say that’s because the credit bureaus, which build your credit report, don’t try hard enough to correct mistakes.

“Furnishers” are businesses that deliver information about how well you pay your bills to hundreds of consumer reporting agencies across the country, including the “Big Three” -- that is, TransUnion, Experian and Equifax, which each have more than 200 million files on people. Furnishers include loan companies, utility providers and debt collectors.

It was a collection agency called Paramount Recovery Systems that allegedly told the nation’s biggest credit bureaus about how Alvarez supposedly owed more than $1,000 in hospital bills. Debt collectors like Paramount Recovery Systems buy old debts by the thousands -- mostly from creditors and lenders, like credit card companies, that have given up trying to collect them -- and the information that comes along with the bundles of old bills they buy is often scarce. Sometimes, it’s just plain wrong. Federal regulators say that debt collectors are responsible for more disputes than any other group that provides the information that makes up credit reports.

Mark McLean, the owner of Paramount Recovery Systems, declined to comment to HuffPost, citing pending litigation.

But not all the blame lies with debt collectors and the other companies that provide information about people to credit bureaus. It rests also with the bureaus themselves, consumer advocates say, for uncritically accepting what data furnishers tell them. Advocates say the bureaus often don’t conduct a reasonable investigation into disputes, even though federal law says they must.

“The credit reporting dispute system is a travesty of justice,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, in testimony before Congress in September. “It is a perfunctory process that consists of nothing more than forwarding the consumer’s dispute to the furnisher, and parroting whatever the furnisher states in response.”

Marie Asgian, 49, knows this better than most. She had a perfect credit history until two years ago, when she noticed that civil judgments for $19,000 worth of debt had started appearing on her Experian credit report.

Having never been sued over a debt, Asgian was perplexed. Her Experian report listed the case numbers for the court judgments, so she took it upon herself to dig through public records until she found the judgments in question. The records she found said the $19,000 in debt was actually owed by someone named MaryAnn Haverland, who lived in Sibley County, Minnesota -- more than an hour’s drive from Minneapolis, where Asgian lives.

Asgian had, however, gotten junk mail for Haverland before, so she figured there’d been a simple mix-up. Over the course of several months, she disputed the debts with Experian multiple times, even sending Experian copies of the court records, the case numbers of which matched the ones on her credit report. But each time she did so, she said, Experian would respond simply by saying its information was correct.

“I felt like I was being held captive for someone else’s crimes,” Asgian told The Huffington Post. She applied for a credit card and was denied. She badly needed a new car, but was afraid of what would happen if she tried to apply for an auto loan.

Her case mirrors that of Alvarez, the doctor in Washington, D.C. Alvarez also disputed her report with the credit bureaus -- all three of which, she says, were reporting false information about her finances. None of Alvarez’s disputes got her anywhere, despite the reams of documents she sent them to demonstrate that the hospital bills weren’t hers.

Both Asgian and Alvarez ended up suing the credit bureaus for not properly investigating their disputes. Both cases are still ongoing. Experian and TransUnion each declined to comment on the lawsuits. Equifax did not respond to a request for comment. Experian spokeswoman Susan Henson said more than 77 percent of disputes are resolved within 20 days. She added that disputes to the agency have fallen 42 percent since 2008.

The credit reporting industry says it takes pains to properly investigate consumer disputes.

“Our surveys of consumers show that 95 percent are satisfied with the work of the credit bureau... when it comes to the dispute process,” said Norm Magnuson of the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA), a trade organization for 200 U.S. consumer reporting companies.

Magnuson also said that in 2013, CDIA members updated the automated system by which they forward consumer disputes to data furnishers, thereby making it easier to send documents or other materials that people say support their claims. Manguson told HuffPost that capability wasn’t in place when the Federal Trade Commission began its study that would eventually find many disputes never get resolved.

Such changes might reduce the error rates on credit reports. But consumer advocates say the credit bureaus’ updated technology won't be enough to fix the problem. The underlying issue, they say, is that the credit bureaus are inherently biased against the little guy.

Lenders and creditors are the ones paying the credit bureaus’ bills, according to advocates, and those companies want to know absolutely everything about a person before lending them any money. They’d rather err on the side of having too much information about someone, even if some of that information is wrong, said Louis Hyman, a credit reporting historian and law professor at Cornell University.

“They want to make sure you’re responsible, and if there’s a shadow of a doubt you were once late on a bill, they want to know that," Hyman told HuffPost. "There’s just no incentive to ever side with the consumer.”

Here's How Fast The Marijuana Industry Is Growing, In 5 Charts

The marijuana industry is booming, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down in the near future.

Legal marijuana is the fastest-growing industry in the United States, according to a new report from researchers at The ArcView Group, a cannabis industry investment and research firm based in Oakland, California. In the next two years, a flurry of states are expected to consider the legalization of recreational marijuana. A majority of Americans continue to support full legalization, nationally, and by 2016, it's entirely possible that marijuana could be a wedge issue in the presidential election.

"These are exciting times, and new millionaires and possibly billionaires are about to be made, while simultaneously society will become safer and freer," Troy Dayton, CEO of The ArcView Group and publisher of the third edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets, said in the executive summary of the report. "We believe that the development of a responsible, politically engaged, and profitable, legal cannabis industry will hasten the day when not a single adult in the world is punished for this plant."

ArcView surveyed hundreds of medical and recreational marijuana retailers in states where sales are legal, as well as ancillary business operators and independent cultivators of the plant. They also compiled data from state agencies, nonprofit organizations and private companies in the marijuana industry for a more complete look at the marketplace.

Here's five charts that show just how fast the marijuana industry is growing, courtesy of ArcView Market Research:

1. This map shows how many states have legalized recreational marijuana and are likely to legalize by 2020.

Graph courtesy of ArcView Market Research.

2. This map shows how many states have legalized medical marijuana and which ones are expected to do so by 2016.

Graph courtesy of ArcView Market Research.

3. This chart shows that California has the largest marijuana market. Right now only medical marijuana is legal, but the state is expected to have a recreational legalization measure in 2016. If voters approve it, the industry could quickly double in size.

Graph courtesy of ArcView Market Research.

4. This chart shows the growth states with medium-sized markets have experienced since 2013. In addition, with Oregon, it shows the vast growth that recreational legalization presents a state.
Graph courtesy of ArcView Market Research.

5. This chart shows the growth in marijuana sales since 2011, as well as the projected increased sales trend into 2016.

Graph courtesy of ArcView Market Research.

One In 5 American Kids Are On Food Stamps

Here's more evidence that the economic recovery isn't benefitting the people who need it most: One in 5 American kids got food stamps in 2014, up from 1 in 8 before the recession.

About 16 million kids relied on the U.S. government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 2014, according to Census Bureau data released Wednesday, up from 15.6 million a year earlier. In 2007, before the start of the Great Recession, that figure was only 9 million.

The Census also found that the percentage of kids on food stamps rose across all types of living arrangements. Nearly half of kids on food stamps live with only their mother.

Enrollment in the food-stamp program began to steadily climb in 2007. Overall enrollment began to fall in 2013 as the economy slowly improved. Children's enrollment dipped a bit in 2013, but rebounded to new highs last year.

The numbers highlight how unfair the recovery has been so far. Most of its benefits have gone to the wealthy, while middle- and low-income Americans have continued to suffer.

The number of kids living in poverty, for example, has risen since the recession. According to a recent study by the Southern Education Foundation, 51 percent of U.S. public school students live in poverty, up from 42 percent in 2006.

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office projected that food stamp enrollment would fall steadily in the coming years. But not all of the declines will be for positive reasons: The Huffington Post previously reported that food stamp enrollment is expected to fall by 1 million next year because of rules that will push unemployed, childless adults off the program.