In Response to the "Unemployed Graduate" from Scholar's Gambit.

This is a response to a wonderful post written by a friend:

http://scholarsgambit.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/the-unemployed-graduate

Finding a job is not easy. It is, in fact, very hard.  The numerous statistics that come out painting a dreadful picture of our employment picture, anecdotes of close friends struggling to find a well paying job, and the numerous reports making an economic recovery seem further and further away are tough to bear. 

Contrast this with a black and white video I saw in one of my history classes: It was a 1950 documentary that interviewed Rutgers Students. In it-- all the kids almost expected a well paying, middle class job. The pretty wife, house in the suburb, and 1 (possibly 2) cars were standard. It was the birth of the long consumption boom. It also was the harbinger of something we face today: the indebted consumer. 

Today, we are facing a profound shift--getting a bachelor's degree is not enough.  And throwing your graduation hat no longer entitles one to be annoyed when a job is not given to you on a silver plated platter. A student needs to get a bachelor's degree, take a technical major, and come out near the top of the class. Add to that job experience: be an administrative assistant, intern, research (aka even if it is typing up a bibliography for a Professor's book).  That black and white video, the dreams of those Rutgers Students are gone. Chances are none of those things are guaranteed...including the pretty wife. 

Why is this the case? Roundup the usual suspects. Companies are investing more on capital (for productivity) than on labor. For the economics geeks, this is the old trade-off where a dollar spent on capital is a dollar not spent on hiring a worker. In today's world--technology has easily been able to replace swathes of workers with one server or computer. The most tragic example of this was when I saw a documentary that showed a bank's "proof and transit" (aka check clearing) have one person do a job that the CEO explained used to hire 40-50 workers. A man sits in one corner working away on a computer. In the other end--a large Pitney Bowes mailing device automatically weighs, stamps, and sorts outgoing mail for the bank's customers. A win for productivity, a win for capital, a loss for the 39 low/middle wage workers. 

Two -- India and China decided to wake up. A friend of mine who works in the IT department of a large corporation can list Indian IT companies. She is expected every morning to sit in on conference calls as she literally directs and outsources work as legions of low wage, highly motivated, and very smart workers complete jobs that were formerly the domain of the American worker. 

So is the American graduate's dream's hopeless? Not at all. It is simply harder.  College students should graduate with a technical skill set, not waste their freshman year "transitioning" into college, and work hard and take difficult classes. If you graduated -- consider a Masters, part-time job to bolster up your work experience, and network. Relentlessly pursue finding a job. Let your family know that your in the job market, look up local clubs and organizations and join them, continue using your college alumni network, take a few classes (i.e. programming). 

You need to be able to market yourself as a person that a computer cannot replace. In my personal network: every person who graduated in the top of their respective majors are employed, those who had an accounting or computer science background are employed, and those working in major corporations proudly show-off the numerous recruiters chasing after them. 

The market, unfortunately, is brutal to those who are mediocre. It is a bull market for those who are persistent, willing to work hard, and have a stroke of luck.

As the old saying goes: when it gets tough, the tough get going. There are 90% of the people employed. Those are odds I would bet on over and over again.  Look at it as if the glass being almost full. 

Tax man cometh.

The recent refusal to cut taxes and raise revenues had me consider three things. First I will lay out an example:

The median income of a family in America (4 people), roughly, is $50,000. Lets for simplicity purposes say that an effective 2.5% tax-cut is passed and is only for those making less than $10 million versus tax cuts for all income brackets. A 2.5% tax-cut at the $10 million level is $250,000. If we take that 2.5% tax cut ($250,000) we can give an additional 10% ($5000) tax cut to 50 families (a family = 4 people) or 200 people. (I realize I am slightly altering the tax cut to give a larger tax cut to those making $50,000)

But my real question is how much more is behavior going to be impacted for someone at the $10 million dollar level with an extra $250,000? Is that person going to spend it all or spend some and save some?

What about that family that got the extra $5,000? In my opinion the family is more likely going to spend that money than the millionaire.

A recent study by Moody's Analytics found that food stamps (for the most impoverished) increases economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance improved by $1.62 for every dollar spent and most other types of tax-cuts is less than $1 dollar of economic activity. Clearly, those on the bottom of the economic pyramid seems to spend more and save less. (Source: Economist- July 16th 2011)

The argument on the behalf of those making $10 million is that they are a job growth creator. But why isn't the person making $50,000 also a job growth creator? That family may go on vacation, but clothes, or fix that broken dishwasher.

Moreover, there is a key difference between giving a tax-cut to an individual making $10 million and a business that is grossing revenues above $10 million. In my opinion, the two often get mixed up when we hear politicians get on their soap boxes. I am all for giving tax breaks to our businesses and improving the regulatory environment. However, I am less convinced that the propensity to spend and stimulate the economy does not diminish (as higher income brackets save more) when we rise up the income ladder.

On another level, a more philosophical one, is the $250k tax cut given to the person (or even family of 4) making $10 million going to impact 200 people? Is buying that exotic watch or car (most likely foreign made) going to improve our economy? From a strictly utilitarian perspective spreading out those tax cuts is more useful in my opinion.

Lastly- giving tax cuts is effective only if it is spent in a productive manner. What if that person making $10 million puts $50,000 into a mutual fund that invests in stocks? Or what if that person uses it to put a downpayment on their third house? Is there any consideration that this may cause asset bubbles (i.e. too much cash chasing too few houses and overvaluing stocks?)

In fact, historically, Americans in the top income brackets were taxed as high as 70%. The money was used to build our roads and improve our infrastructure. These days our infrastructure is rotting because there is not enough money in our government's coffers.

But then again my whole analysis (light on rigorous empirical detail) might be biased in that I am not making $10 million.

Are U.S. Corporations overtaxed?

Lets just begin by assuming they are. The draconian taxes of the United States is what is preventing American companies from expanding in the U.S. The trillion dollars that is parked outside of the United States is often used as a proxy to argue that our country is not "business friendly."

But does anyone care about where these "low tax rates are?" The money is not being parked in Europe. It is not being parked in India and China. It is being parked in small Nordic countries (oh the Dutch) and islands (i.e. Cayman Islands) where the only requirement is that the company maintain a post office box to able to park their money. How can we possibly match the 5% tax rates of these countries for corporations and still maintain our roads, fight two wars, and pay our entitlements?

The whole argument that our tax rates are too high is a red herring. There will always be a tiny island in the middle of nowhere that can undercut our tax rates. Companies will always move their money off-shore or find a more tax friendly area. We, as one of the largest Republics in the world, cannot compete with tax rates of an island that is the size of one of our states and an economy that maybe one of our country's towns can equal.

But the discourse has been that we have very high corporate tax rates.

Finally, where is the mad rush for these corporations to invest in? India and China. No one will reasonably argue that these countries are more business friendly. American carmakers, for example, are required to partner up with indigenous firms in China (for example) to be able to tap those markets. Onerous much?

But despite these regulations--companies are trying to aggressively invest in these markets because the demand is there. Maybe its not high tax rates that is preventing companies from investing in American but simply a function of a depressed economy and weak demand.

This is not to say that we cannot do anything to make it more business friendly for corporations. However, saying that our country taxes our companies to death is--in my opinion--at least questionable.

----->

I also stumbled upon this:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/

The Road Less Traveled

Robert Frost's poem rings true when considering the current divergence of policies between Europe and the United States. It goes:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

One by one the European Union states have decided/considered to go on a spending diet. The era of debt and spending came to a sudden halt. Please view an old speech that warned of the impending debt crisis:




Austerity measures were instituted from Great Britian to Greece. Keynesians were worried that reducing government spending during a recession was ill timed and could slow the economic recovery. Even Nouriel Roubini, an economist who has been predicting financial disaster due to unsustainable debts, has hedged his bets by saying that he is concerned that European government's may be cutting back too much, too soon. Across the Atlantic, however, the United States passed a large tax cut. In a compromise that tried to please everyone--concessions on improving the welfare net (extension to the unemployment insurance) met with trickle down economics (tax cuts for the wealthy) at the finest. The cost would be a staggering $800 billion. Which method will win out needs the benefit of hindsight.

Reducing taxes for two years continue to leave uncertainty. Most business plans of large institutions look farther out that two years. After all, for example, if the payroll taxcut (a measure of the bill) is supposed to increase hiring--you as a business know that two years later it may not exist. Are you seriously going to spend months looking for a worker because of the payroll tax cut or are you going to hire because you really need a worker?

So what does this tax cut accomplish? Reinforce that model--it wants Americans to continue to spend more, save less. The concept of saving, leaving money on the "side lines" as opposed to in the equity markets/risky investments, or pushing off a purchase for another day is unacceptable. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, someone's got to pay the piper. This unsustainable model needs to be changed through investment and well managed, decentralized industrial policy.

First, our educational system is failing us. Every day the news is filled with fears (some exaggerated) that we are not graduating enough math and science students. The shortfall in primary care physicians in the coming years is just one metric to measure this. Why don't we provide incentives, a cornerstone of behavioral economics, to influence a high school graduate's decision to take harder math and science classes? A public-private fund should be setup where any student who maintains decent grades, plans on studying math or science, can apply for a large grant as long as he/she maintains certain criteria through college. Again, this should be driven solely on merit. I recently read an article talking about how a business in Michigan is having trouble hiring mechanical engineers to build electric batteries, wind turbines, and other futuristic technologies. These businesses should be given large tax credits for setting up scholarships to attract students into the "hard" science classes. Google, for example, has been bringing students into their offices to ignite their fascination for technology. Intel has science competitions that are very popular. All these are efforts are in the right direction, but must be scaled up. However, it needs a boost from the government.

Second, we need to promote exports. Currently, a handful of mega companies are the largest exporters. Small and medium size businesses don't consider exporting their goods. This is in part due to the difficulty of navigating other economies. After all, why would anyone want to invest in expanding in another country's economy when they are home to the largest economy in the world? BUT -- with the rising middle class in the emerging world, opportunities abound. Many people often mistakenly think that other countries rising in wealth is a threat to America, in effect a zero sum game. However, with our industries geared towards meeting the needs of these consumers we can develop a virtuous cycle of dependence that in the long run may prevent disastrous consequences.

Take Singapore, for example, --a government agency is devoted to helping its companies export goods--whether it is navigating the legal issues in other countries or having the proper paperwork done. A similar system, again public-private, should be set up where any small/medium business with ambition can get low cost services and set them up for exporting to another country. After all, the "American" brand is still coveted around the world. Imagine being defined by numerous American companies instead of just the usual gold arches, swoosh tick mark, or a mermaid selling coffee. Though the commerce department has offices trying to promote that a more active effort that makes exporting cost effective for a mom and pop down the street should be, in my opinion, an eventual goal.

Third, government should promote basic research. Industrial policy is often controversial. The last thing I want is a million bureaucrats dictating which industries should get funding. BUT--if highways were not built by the government to make it easy for companies to ship their goods and people to move around--would we have such a prosperous country? If the internet was not funded by the government, would so many businesses have benefitted from building on it? Amazon and Google may not have existed! A conscious effort to deal with large scale projects should be considered:
- dealing with our aging electric grids
- improve our bridges and roads
- utilizing both fossil fuels and alternate technologies to reduce our energy dependence. To get both sides of the political aisle together, why not for every kilowatt of energy produced by a nonrenewable resource a kilowatt of renewable resource should be produced?
- increasing access to broadband

Lastly, access to small business credit should be much easier. Currently, the best route to attracting venture capital funding--for example--is by initially proving your success. This means that if I want to start a business, I first need to attract "angel" investors or be independently wealthy. This is very difficult. But why not have more hubs of entrepreneurial activities by having a public-private partnership where loans are given out to those with good ideas. Now instead of setting up a large government agency--the money should be given to local banks, venture capitalists as well as large banks with the explicit purpose of funding companies. The institutions decide what rates to charge, but the barrier to entry should be lower. Obviously, many of those companies will fail. However, those that succeed will serve as engines of economic growth. After all, we just need one Google or Apple to have a dramatic effect on the lives of numerous Americans. More broadly, even if one or two companies succeed for even eight or ten failures--ambitious businessmen know that they can get access to credit in an easy way. Obviously, issues of moral hazard as well as how the funds will get dispersed should be worked out. But this will in effect scale up the silicon valley model to hopefully a silicon valley nation that produces great American companies.

I concede that I simplify these broad issues and may even have missed major issues with some of these ideas. And while I understand change can be a good or bad thing, it is imperative we break our bad habit of spending too much and reverting back to the entrepreneurial, risk taking, hard working formula that has defined our decades of success.

What can I do with my political science (read: liberal arts) major?

Recently, I was perusing through the Rutgers political science website and came upon this long discourse:

(http://www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergraduate-mainmenu-135/what-can-i-do-with-polisci-mainmenu-157)

Let me save you some time and highlight parts of it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NOBODY CARES WHAT YOUR MAJOR IS EXCEPT YOU (AND YOUR PARENTS)"

"All the evidence we have suggests that, after you leave Rutgers, practically no one will care what you majored in. Potential employers will want to know whether you have the necessary abilities and skills to do whatever job they want done. A knowledge of French, say, may be required for the job, but the question will be how good your French is, not how many courses you took in it or what grades you got. Even graduate schools don't care much; one Political Science teacher in this department majored in physics, for example."

"What's going on here? Why does your major have so little connection to your occupation? The reason is quite simple. We won't let you specialize much in liberal arts education; to put it crudely, you won't learn enough in your major field to get hired just because of that knowledge. If you major in economics, for example, you're not an economist; you're someone with a bachelors degree who took some courses in economics. (If you want to become an economist, you'll have to do like your teachers and spend seven to ten years living economics twenty-four hours a day. However, since you are a sane person, you probably have better sense. If not, graduate school awaits.)"

"College graduates have relatively little specialized knowledge. Instead they (hopefully) have the critical skills of reading, writing, analysis, and open minds. Employers aren't fools (mostly); they don't expect Ph.D. knowledge from a B.A. If they hire a college graduate, they want someone who can learn and do things, which will help them. By and large, they couldn't care less that your major was. (The one exception comes in your first job, if you show them a record where the only thing of note is your major. So the trick is to get some more things to show them which they will find more useful--see the next section.)"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout my college career, I often was mocked for taking an easy major. What can you do with political science? Be a politician? What real value does it add? Those who were scared of math and science, those who were not necessarily academically precocious ended up being political science majors. Many (including myself) deflected the dreaded "What will you do when you graduate?" question with a profession of choice. Go to a typical political science class and many would state the trite few professional aspirations: lawyer, civil servant, professor, and politician. In fairness, nothing is wrong with these jobs. But the key difference is that while a decent paying accountant or engineer's job is almost (as long as you work hard and do well) -- guaranteed not everyone can be a top tier lawyer, a mayor, or tenured professor. The range in salaries if you will for those in politics from a "Get Out the Vote" foot solider analyzing which districts to strategically canvass for a Congressmen or Senator is wider when compared to the average (even bottom of the barrel) employed accountant. Furthermore, becoming a tenured professor is an incredibly difficult task with most academics languishing as a teaching assistant or assistant professor--mired with debt. (The lost earnings and opportunity cost of studying instead of working adds to the financial troubles.) Moreover, the demand for accountants and computer professionals are rising while there is an oversupply of lawyers and some would argue even bickering politicians.

In my opinion, with anemic economic growth, increased competition abroad, and the rising cost of higher education--universities are expected to become conduits to a well paying job. The average undergraduate carries around $20 thousand in debt when he/she graduates. Despite these costs, why do people still go to college in droves? The statistics don't lie--even in the current economic environment the college degree carrying population has a 5% unemployment rate when compared with the national 9.6%. The disparity becomes even more obvious when during the recession low paying jobs grew, high paying jobs were stagnant/exhibited slight growth, and middle class (manufacturing and other non-college related jobs) fell.

But I think the shift in the purpose of universities make the defense of my beloved political science major difficult. A few hundred years ago, a university education was closed off to anyone but the very rich and occasionally very brilliant. Aristocrats were the only ones who could waste four years (not earning any money) to sit around--thinking and learning. Proper etiquette, logic, rhetoric, philosophy, math, and science were all incorporated in making the well-rounded person. In this context, debating how governments should be run, what the purpose of our existence was, and other lofty questions made sense. This was a break and opportunity for the intellectuals to consider great thoughts. In that era, political science made sense. Today, political philosophy does not really help the bottom line of a large corporation. Obviously, the indirect argument that political science majors are able to read and think critically remain--but it’s not as tangible as a computer science major who can write what languages they can program on a resume.

So classes today--and there are numerous exceptions to this--are taken to maximize GPA, improve job prospects, and learning has become an indirect effect of checking off requirements for graduation. Cottage industries have grown around promoting the short cut mentality for graduation: www.ratemyprofessors.com, websites promising to write research papers for you, www.sparknotes.com providing in-depth summaries of major books, and companies giving you typed notes for your class so you avoid attending them.

Now there is nothing wrong with going to college with the intention of using it as a way to get a job. In fact, a labor economics professor of mine made the case that college was simply a way for companies to find out if you can work hard, meet deadlines, and deal with different personalities. After all, lets be honest, if we were immediately given an exam we took during our freshman year class of college how many of us could pass the exam? We can, however, relearn the concepts and pass the exam. The ability to learn and relearn new skills are what companies are looking for.

Thus, while reality has forced colleges to become a job training center for many--a political science major gives one an opportunity to think about things that a normal job may not allow: international relations, the structure of governments, political philosophy, or law. And for those lucky few--it maybe that your profession might require you to consider these issues daily. Who knows some of these issues may spark thoughts that you may never have considered--giving you an opportunity to understand the world a little bit better. After all, debating Socrates or understanding how our political institutions were set up may help you at least get a better grasp of the politics of today.

I still remember conversing with a Professor of mine and proudly showing off the diverse courses I had taken in economics, political science and history. He stopped and asked me: I assume you never took an art history class? I stood dumbfounded.

So should you major in political science? Consider your motives. But if your looking for guaranteed, well paying job--become a doctor, engineer, or accountant. Hopefully, one with lofty thoughts.

A Set of Paradoxes

An adversarial backdrop, in my opinion, has recently defined many of our interactions with the international community whether it is foreign, economic, or scientific in nature. To many there are predictions of a seismic shift where the West gives way to the rest. Just like fair-weather fans who cheer on the winning team, the statistics have certainly been laid in their favor: anemic growth in the United States, a growing debt problem in Europe and gridlock amongst Western policy makers. Not surprisingly, a Chinese hedge fund that wants to protect itself from a cataclysmic deterioration of the U.S. economy is in talks with Nassim Taleb who owns the hedge fund Universa. Taleb coined the term 'Black Swan' after the once popular myth that all swans were white. This myth was disproved when black swans were found in Australia. Taleb in his book "The Black Swan" encourages investors to use options to buy insurance against what economists call the fat tail risk of highly improbable events becoming a reality. The hedge fund believes that the cost of letting options expire and replenishing them will be made up when that inevitable 'crash' happens. Sadly, actions such as these which root for the titans who set the world standard to falter are troubling.

And the news marches on: China overtook Japan to become the second largest economy in the world. Germany--a bright spot in the West--has shattered all its previous GDP growth rates by exporting its way out of its financial troubles. But questions remain: Is the Chinese economy overheating? (Think rising wages and Foxconn suicides) How long can Germany keep exporting its Benz's? (Think anemic growth in developed countries.)

Irrespective of whichever side of the  aisle your're on--the message has changed very little. When was the last time a conservative offered a new idea? When was the last time a liberal challenged established views? A mentality of stubbornness has pervaded our consciousness where we continue to dismiss others and believe that our system is the best, second to none. We refuse to change our way and this is the heart of our problem. 

The analogy reverberates strongly: the crumbling of the Roman Empire was because of high debt, far flung wars, and a stubborn and out-of-touch leadership. I will concede that a multitude of other factors also played a role in the Ancient Empire's demise but historians are quick to point out that most great empires and countries fall prey to the same problems time and time again. Little has changed despite having the benefit of a rear view mirror. After all, the sun did settle on the former British Empire. 

What about our Pax Americana? How do we prevent the fate of others who fell from the perch of power? This is not to cast a doomsday scenario or claim that America's best days are not ahead, but is more a warning shot--if you will--that serious and concerted effort is absolutely necessary.  Change--as expected-- is riddled with uncertainty; the status quo is a lot easier. And the change I am referring to is not the habitual switching of policies between Republicans and Democrats. We need to do what other countries did to spark their engine of prosperity: follow the model that worked. A wellspring of liberalized markets, educated workforces, and American styled markets came into fruition around the world because countries realized it worked. Now why not take copy those who seem to have success today?

Germany, for example, subsidized worker's wages and made companies hold onto their workers instead of laying them off. This way worker's did not get discouraged (as is a huge problem in America) and continued to hone their skills. China is powering ahead with broad based investment in high-speed rails, solar power plants, and advanced technology. India is investing more money into educating its future. Britain is considering broad based cuts in the military as well as other government services.

All these things challenge the ego of American might. We want to have the fastest growing economy. We want to have the most powerful military. We want to reduce our budget deficits. We want to regulate Wall Street and prevent asset bubbles/leveraging that fueled our growth.

How can we have and eat our cake? These demands all conflict with each other and unless serious leadership prioritizes and pushes through difficult reforms the Roman analogy may (in some form) affect our great nation as well. Only time will tell.

Oh Fox News

Our 24 hours news media is a snapshot of our country: bitterly divided. MSNBC is the home to a bastion of liberal minded commentators; Fox News tends to court the Conservatives with passion. As for CNN--it is somewhere in the middle touting an aging Larry King and Wolf Blitzer who is on too long on weekday evenings. But what bothers me the most is that every major news outlet tries to masquerade themselves as professing the "truth" -- fair and balanced. MSNBC has recently started a media campaign where they use patriotic themes, images that scream American  and then end it with their logo--almost as if wrapping themselves around "America." But none of these stations truly represent the views of all Americans. The fact is that they simple cannot--we as a nation espouse a diverse set of views and for the better or worse want to only watch things that cater to that viewpoint. Put a liberal in front of Glenn Beck and the person would joke about his antics; a conservative on the other hand considers it gospel. (There are many shades in between.)

I believe there is an easy way out: SAY WHAT YOU ARE. No one can criticize these news networks if they say what they are, that they have an intended motive. For example, if you go to a movie theatre expecting a movie to be in the "horror genre" -- you get annoyed when it's not. Similarly, when a commentator or even a source of media tries to claim they are "objective" when they are not--at least some are surely to be annoyed. In effect, expectations are not met leading to disappointment.

The second option is strive to be objective. Everything tends to be charged words that linger on-- "Obamacare" "higher taxes" "socialism" --- news always has to be something that sticks in your head. If someone had a tax professor sit there and discuss the minute details of why the Democrats claim the legislation is a tax break for most while Republicans claim its a tax increase -- the viewer would change the channel. But isn't that what we need? Can't there be a business model for a news station that doesn't sound like C-SPAN and is mildly more interesting and fact driven?

Take, for example, candidates for office coming on news stations. They have been coached to avoid tough questions, attack their opponents, and claim to have the best interest in their heart. Why not take them to task? For example, have the facts laid out in a computer monitor  (or swanky touch screen) by the candidate. So if the candidate says "well I never said this" -- play the clip of where the candidate supposedly said it. If a fact is challenged -- have a report that comes on in the background that either contradicts or supports the candidates facts. Have a dynamic model where facts are checked real time instead of hoping the viewer goes on some arcane website to "fact check."

Similarly, news shows claim to be impartial when they bring a liberal and conservative commentator on. Both sides attack each other -- whose right? Why doesn't the media challenge, question or consider each view point. I, as the viewer, gain nothing by "approving" the side arguing my viewpoint. If I were to see some facts, reports, or even due diligence on what is being said by each commentator--the media may be making a step towards the "objective" of being "objective."

Unfortunately, we are in a society where information has skewed from not having access to information to having access to too much information. As I once heard "it is a paradox of plenty." The engaged citizens, some would argue, are responsible to find the facts, make their own opinions. But who has the time? Who seriously has the time to sit and fact check what a politician is saying?  That is why attack ads and viral thirty second clips have a disproportionate impact.

While this is not an argument against an engaged citizenry; however, but when you place it in the context of reality--nagging kids, financial issues, even issues with plumbing--who has time to cast an informed vote for a politician who may or may not even represent the individual's view? The result is that those on the extremes, those who have vested interests in the political process, those who are even wealthier and more educated -- have a larger impact in Congress. The "average Joe" that every politician claims to have at heart is probably not the one who is going to be voting.