Current Events in February 2013

How's your social media etiquette? A survey of social media users suggests most people could use a little improvement in their online behavior.

For example, the survey commissioned by MyLife.com found that 88% of young parents between the ages of 18 and 35 flood Facebook with updates and photos of their children at least once a month. One in ten social media users have lost friends due to political posts and 36% of women aged 18-35 said they would be embarrassed if people on the other end of their "lurking" knew how often they viewed their profiles.

On ConsumerAffairs, complaints about Facebook often include comments about other users' behavior.

Extreme examples

"I wrote to the FTC and all those others turning in a stalker, who not only threatened to do harm to my mother but also me," Reba, of California, wrote in a recent ConsumerAffairs post. "I'm frustrated by the negligence in Facebook practices. I waited for some kind of reply to get this stopped."

Scott, of Sammamish, Wash., reported that someone created a fraudulent Facebook page, impersonating him.

These are, perhaps, extreme examples of bad social media behavior. The survey identified several other behaviors that, while more subtle, are no less annoying to many social media consumers.

Lurker & cute kids

For example, are you a "lurker?" According to the survey, nearly a quarter of young men under age 35 admit to creeping onto an ex's social media profile once a month.

Young women do it too, but less frequently. Only about 20% of young women in the same age group admit to "lurker" behavior.

Maybe you are a "vaguebooker." That's someone who posts status updates so vague – likely by design – that friends and followers have almost no choice but to ask for more detail.

One in four adults between 18 and 35 are guilty of "vaguebooking" on a monthly basis, posting intentionally vague or broad status updates to encourage friends and followers to react, reach out or inquire for more details.

To many, there's nothing worse than a "Spoiler." That's someone who doesn't think twice about using Twitter or Facebook to broadcast the details of a series finale or an opinion of a new movie's ending.

Thirty-six percent of social media users over the age of 35 admit to posting TV or movie spoilers on their social networks, though only 14% of younger social network users say they are guilty of this behavior.

Everyone loves their children but some social media users have no hesitation about blasting this love all over social media.

Eighty-eight percent of young parents post pictures of their kids or parenting-related updates once a month.

Everybody's a pundit

Does it seem like a lot of your Facebook friends are auditioning for talk radio or a cable news show? Some people don't seem to be able to restrain themselves when it comes to expressing political opinions.

The survey found 35% of social media users post political opinions at least once a month. Eleven percent of social media users say they have lost friends because of political posts on their social networks. No doubt much of that occurred in the recent election cycle.

In days past etiquette guardians like Emily Post set the rules for people to interact in polite company. But with much of our interaction now taking place online, maybe it's time for a social media Emily Post to step forward to establish some standards for social media behavior.

There are quite a few ways to throw money away, some more fun than others. You can drink a lot of beer or wine, smoke a lot of cigars or cigarettes, buy a lot of lottery tickets or invest in high-tech start-up companies.

Or you can just go gas up your car.

That's the message of a new study from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which found that most Americans are likely to spend almost as much on gasoline over the life of their vehicle as its original cost when they could save thousands with a fuel-efficient vehicle.

Examining where all that money paid at the pump actually goes, the new report found that of the $50 a driver pays at the pump, on average, $33 will go directly to oil companies. That means that if a driver bought a car in 2011 and drove it for 15 years – the lifetime for an average vehicle – they would spend more than $22,000 on gasoline, $14,000 of which would go directly to oil companies.

“Filling up at the pump isn’t cheap,” said Joshua Goldman, the report’s author and policy analyst for UCS’s Clean Vehicles program. “You’re basically paying for a second car every 15 years. The only thing really benefitting from your oil use is oil companies’ bottom line.”

And sure enough, rising gas prices and drivers’ trips to the pump are translating into big profits for the oil industry. Just last week, ExxonMobil and Chevron posted near-record profits in 2012 of $44.9 billion and $26.2 billion, respectively.  

Obviously, that money doesn't do much to benefit consumers, and the study found it doesn't do much to feed money into communities either. In fact, just 81 cents of an average $50 fill-up goes to the local gas station owner.

“In the end, gas stations make more money off the bottled water, beef jerky, and other things you buy inside than off the fuel you buy outside,” Goldman added.

Even if a driver owns shares in the same oil companies they buy gas from, their oil use does virtually nothing to benefit their personal stock portfolio. In fact, an average driver with $20,000 in ExxonMobil stock would see less than a penny of growth in their investment after spending $1,700 to fill up with gas from ExxonMobil over the course of a year.

Even if ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson were to spend an estimated $3,200 filling up a Chevy Suburban – one of the most fuel-inefficient vehicles in the country – over the course of a year, his $150 million in ExxonMobil stock would only grow 34 cents through his fill-ups.

Hybrids pay off

By contrast, the study found, efficiency can deliver large returns for drivers. For instance, a Ford Fusion SE Hybrid costs $3,500 more than its base conventional gas model, but consumes $9,000 less in gasoline over its lifetime.

“Saving money by investing in a fuel-efficient vehicle is a win whether you own oil stocks or not,” Goldman said. “Even Rex Tillerson would see more personal benefit from owning a fuel-efficient vehicle than continuing to fill up a gas guzzler at ExxonMobil stations.”

Automakers are starting to offer more gas-saving models thanks in part to historic new standards finalized in 2010 and strengthened last year to nearly double the fuel economy of new vehicles by 2025. But it's up to consumers to do the math and avail themselves of the savings a fuel-efficient car can bring.

Improvements to the online functioning of eBenefits by the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense (DoD) means registered users will have more and secure access to a variety of military and Veterans benefits resources.

“eBenefits is clearly becoming the platform of choice for veterans seeking access to the numerous benefits they have earned,” said Undersecretary for Benefits Allison A. Hickey. “The increasing capabilities of eBenefits give veterans and servicemembers greater flexibility in securing the information they are looking for.”

Easier navigation

The latest release -- eBenefits 4.3 -- allows for easy navigation of the online disability compensation claim submission process using interview-style questions and drop-down menus similar to tax-preparation software, instead of a traditional fill-in-the-blank form. It also pre-populates the application with information from a veteran’s record in VA’s secure database. Veterans can view processing times for each phase of their claim.

Other site improvements include a tool to help determine if a vet is eligible for Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment benefits, a calculator for military reservists to determine retirement benefits, and a search function that identifies a claimant’s appointed veterans service representative, with links to Google Maps indicating the location of their nearest representative’s office. Servicemembers and veterans can also access records like Post-9/11 GI Bill enrollment status, VA payment history, and DoD TRICARE health insurance status.

Moving to the digital age

The eBenefits application is a key component of VA’s continuing transformation to a digital environment for veterans’ benefits delivery and fully supports VA’s Veterans Relationship Management initiative that provides vets with the ability to access information about their benefits anywhere, anytime and empowers them to manage those benefits through self-service capabilities. Additional functionality and features will continue to be added to the site throughout the coming months.

To access eBenefits, veterans and servicemembers must obtain a DoD Self-Service Logon (DS Logon), which provides access to several Veterans and military benefits resources using a single username and password. The service is free and may be obtained in person at a VA Regional Office, TRICARE Service Center or online.

There are currently 2.2 million users with access to eBenefits, and VA is on track to meet the 2013 agency priority goal of 2.5 million users, as outlined for VA on www.Performance.gov.

With the most-recent release, eBenefits has successfully completed 13 consecutive quarterly releases since October 2009 with 47 self-service features giving servicemembers and veterans the ability to download copies of their official VA and military correspondence -- to include veterans civil service preference, service verification, and benefits verification letters; military records; and VA home loan certificates of eligibility, to name a few.

With some American gas stations now offering gasoline with a 15 percent ethanol additive -- a fuel known as E15 -- the debate over its efficiency and potential harm to motors is heating up.

The Coordinating Research Council (CRC), which includes petroleum and automobile manufacturing trade groups, says new research shows E15 would damage millions of post-2001 model year vehicles. The CRC study concluded that E15 would result in fuel system failures.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared E15 for use in "flex vehicles" as well as most 2001 and later model year vehicles. EPA said it approved the fuel after analyzing Department of Energy data.

"This latest research is further evidence that E15 is not just an abstract public policy gone wrong; it's likely to harm everyday consumers," said Charlie T. Drevna , President of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).

He says the CRC engine durability study and the newly released fuel pump study provide compelling evidence that EPA's approval of E15 was premature. He said EPA should examine this new information and reconsider its E15 waiver decision, arguing the decision to permit the sale of E15 will do more harm than good.

Counter-attack

Advocates of ethanol fuels and alternative energy quickly attacked the report. One group, Fuels America, linked CRC to the American Petroleum Institute (API), suggesting the report was a biased attack on a competitor.

"CRC’s bias is clear – API is a 'sustaining member' of the group – and so it’s no surprise that the CRC is negative about E15," Fuels America said in a statement. "They’re playing right into API’s misguided ploy to overturn the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)."

The alternative energy advocacy group says the EPA decision to clear E15 for consumer use was based on over 6.5 million miles of testing, making E15 the most tested fuel, ever. It says the CRC study is not based on miles driven, but on car components tested in isolation.

"The oil industry is intent on maintaining its control over America’s fuel supply, and this kind of biased research is exactly why we must continue to protect the Renewable Fuel Standard and the investment it has supported," the group said.

2007 law

But already, with the current 10 percent ethanol fuel blends, there have been reported problems with marine engines, as well as small tool engines.

Manufacturers have worried that E15, while not to be used in boats and small engines, might damage the engines in which it is used. The RFS was passed by Congress in 2007, requiring refiners to produce gasoline blended with ethanol, as a means of reducing the need for imported oil. But in addition to oil companies, AAA has voiced concerns about the fuel, warning it could cause engine problems and even void warranties.

That earned AAA a recent rebuke from another alternative energy advocacy group, the Renewable Fuels Association(RFA).

“If AAA weren’t so deep in the Big Oil politics, they would stop manufacturing concern about the efficacy of ethanol blend use and report enthusiastically about ethanol’s consumer gasoline price savings," Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of RFA, said late last year. "Their misplaced concern today, that E15 should be further tested before being offered for sale reflects a pathetic ignorance of EPA’s unprecedented test program before approving E15 for commercial use."

But Drevna said EPA should heed the warnings from AAA and engine manufacturers, or else consumers will pay the price.

"While Congress could not have anticipated that the Renewable Fuel Standard would backfire as badly as it has, increasing ethanol concentration in gasoline is not the appropriate response," Drevna said. Doing so will only prolong the shelf-life of a policy that has proven unworkable, time and time again. Congress must make it a priority this year to repeal the RFS before millions of motorists are put at risk."

Thanks to a settlement between retailers and Visa and MasterCard, retailers are now allowed to pass along the swipe fees they pay to the credit card networks to consumers.

Should consumers be worried? No, says Erik Larson, CEO of online financial resource NextAdvisor.com.

"I think it's extremely unlikely many retailers will choose to do this, for a number of reasons," Larson said. "For starters, ten states still ban it, including California, New York and Florida.

That means chains and franchise operations would not be able to make it a nationwide policy since they couldn't be consistent. If they have stores in any of those ten states, those stores couldn't participate.

Here's another reason: if the business also accepted American Express, they would be prevented from passing on the swipe fee to customers using Visa or MasterCard.

Visa MasterCard settlement

The whole issue is the result of a settlement between retailers and Visa and MasterCard. Neither American Express nor Discover were party to the suit and are not covered by the settlement.

American Express has always had a policy of not allowing retailers to, essentially, give consumers a cash discount. They haven't changed. The rule that emerged from the settlement requires retailers to pass along the swipe fee to all credit card customers or none at all. If a business accepted all credit cards, they would be prevented from passing on the swipe fee.

So really, the only retailers who could charge this fee are those that do not operate nationally and who only accept Visa and MasterCard. Of those, mostly "mom and pops," Larson thinks they are highly unlikely to tack on the fee for competitive reasons. And really, there's no need for it.

Baked into the price

"These fees have been incorporated into prices for a long time," he said. "Today, stores anticipate their customers paying with a credit or debt card."

The companies that process credit card payments charge retailers a fee, based on the percentage of the purchase. The retailers sued, arguing that the fee was too high.

As part of a settlement last year, retailers got lower swipe fees, along with the right to pass them on to consumers if they wanted to. But to Larson, it's not really an issue that consumers will face.

Over-hyped

"It's absolutely been over-hyped," Larson said. "There are so many reasons not to pass on the swipe fee that most stores simply won't. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will."

In addition to California, New York and Florida, states that continue to prevent retailers from passing along swipe fees are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine and Massachusetts.

All across the country, Americans are apparently going into Hostess Twinkies withdrawal, their  cravings for the tasteless, gooey snacks going unmet. 

But now, riding to the rescue is Safeway, which is producing a Twinkies wannabe snack under its Snack Artist private label.

“It looks like a Twinkie. It tastes like a Twinkie. But this is no dream,” Safeway wrote on its Facebook page, Supermarket News reported. “Snack Artist's delicious snack cakes are real.” 

We couldn't find the announcement on Safeway's incredibly cluttered Facebook page and the company doesn't have any information about it (or much of anything else) on its corporate website.

But perhaps that's because the Safeway team has been busy baking. For not only has it brought forth the Twinkie knockoff, it's also introducing another new Snack Artist item -- cleverly called "Chocolate Cupcakes." They're remarkably similar to Hostess Cupcakes and have the familiar curly white line down the middle.

The one and only true Twinkies and Cupcakes have disappeared from view for the moment, thanks to the bankruptcy and liquidation of Hostess Brands, an outcome the company blamed on its unions.

But Safeway's moment in the snacking sun may not last long. Two private equity firms are reportedly near a deal to buy the Hostess brand names and bring the sticky snacks back to the grubby hands of snack mavens. No doubt the private equity wizards will find a way around the unionized baker issue. Mexico, perhaps? 

Path is a somewhat obscure social network that lets users share their innermost thoughts and, for that matter, their most superficial insights with a network of up to 150 friends. It's sort of an online diary.

It's one of those cute little apps that uses a sort of baby patois to communicate with its users. On the subject of privacy, for example, Path says:

Path should be private by default. Forever. You should always be in control of your information and experience.

But its users' thoughts aren't always all that gets shared. The Federal Trade Commission charged the company with collecting personal info from its users' address books without bothering to tell them or ask their permission.

And not only that, but the FTC says Path illegally collected personal information from children without their parents' consent.

Path has agreed to pay $800,000 and button up its processes in the future.

"Over the years the FTC has been vigilant in responding to a long list of threats to consumer privacy, whether it’s mortgage applications thrown into open trash dumpsters, kids information culled by music fan websites, or unencrypted credit card information left vulnerable to hackers,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.  “This settlement with Path shows that no matter what new technologies emerge, the agency will continue to safeguard the privacy of Americans.”

Path's response, posted on its website, seemed to credit itself with bringing the matter to public attention:

"We want to share our experience and learnings in the hope that others in our industry are reminded of the importance of making sure services are in full compliance with rules like COPPA. ...

"Throughout this experience and now, we stand by our number one commitment to serve our users first."

Path said it found about 3,000 minors in its system and purged them when the discovery was made.

No meaningful choice

In its complaint, the FTC charged that the user interface in Path's iOS app was misleading and provided consumers no meaningful choice regarding the collection of their personal information. 

In version 2.0 of its app for iOS, Path offered an “Add Friends” feature to help users add new connections to their networks.  The feature provided users with three options: “Find friends from your contacts;” “Find friends from Facebook;” or “Invite friends to join Path by email or SMS.” 

However, Path automatically collected and stored personal information from the user’s mobile device address book even if the user had not selected the “Find friends from your contacts” option.  For each contact in the user’s mobile device address book, Path automatically collected and stored any available first and last names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Facebook and Twitter usernames, and dates of birth.

The FTC also alleged that Path’s privacy policy deceived consumers by claiming that it automatically collected only certain user information such as IP address, operating system, browser type, address of referring site, and site activity information.  In fact, version 2.0 of the Path app for iOS automatically collected and stored personal information from the user’s mobile device address book when the user first launched version 2.0 of the app and each time the user signed back into the account.

Invaded children's privacy

The agency also charged that Path, which collects birth date information during user registration, violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule by collecting personal information from approximately 3,000 children under the age of 13 without first getting parents’ consent. 

Through its apps for both iOS and Android, as well as its website, Path enabled children to create personal journals and upload, store and share photos, written “thoughts,” their precise location, and the names of songs to which the child was listening.  Path version 2.0 also collected personal information from a child’s address book, including full names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth and other information, where available.

Here’s a question: How does one shop with a purpose?

I’m not talking about shopping to fulfill a personal agenda, like being on a mission to buy that perfect end table for your den; I’m talking about shopping with a larger purpose in mind, like always trying to buy sustainable items or only choosing to patronize stores that are mindful of the environment and the local community.

Many times being a responsible and socially minded shopper is easier to do in a brick and mortar setting, as individual stores and chains will often create huge ad campaigns around the social causes they’re involved in, which makes it easier for consumers to know what companies are doing in terms of donating to charities, having their goods made responsibly and having safe and fair working conditions for its employees.

But when it comes to buying stuff online, combining your desire to shop with your desire to join a particular cause isn’t as easy, since many e-commerce sites focus solely on the products they sell, while spending much of their time trying to make it easier for you to buy and share items with others.

However, the website We-Care.com has taken a different approach and has tried to combine shopping with social responsibility by allowing consumers to participate in a cause through online shopping.

The benefit here is that consumers don’t have to carve out a separate amount of time to donate to a cause, because a percentage of each purchase will automatically go towards whatever charity, drive, program, school or organization that you would like.

Here’s how it works: Users have to first select their cause, because where you donate is completely up to you, as opposed to the site having a list of organizations and charities that you have to choose from.

Then you select from over 2,500 merchants and by accessing these merchants through the We-Care website, a portion of what you spend will automatically go to the cause that you selected.

Is it legit?

As with everything that looks a little too good to be true, there are drawbacks to We-Care.

First of all, donations made as part of a purchase through the site are not likely to be deductible on your income tax return. There's no definitive word on this as far as we have been able to learn but if you are planning to make a large deduction to a specific charity, you should do it directly to the charity and be sure to get a receipt that specifies you did not get any goods or services in return for the donation.

Then there's the question of whether the site plays by its own rules. The Web of Trust, a rating tool for websites, gives it a failing grade in four major areas -- vendor reliability, privacy, trustworthiness and child safety.

ASPCA’s website has a We-Care link, which shows the social site is working with reputable organizations. That lends it at least some credibility.

Also Oprah Winfrey and others have used We-Care to draw attention to various social causes and events, for whatever that's worth.

The average rate for the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) as tracked by Freddie Mac is above 3.5 percent for the first time since September 13th of last year.

According to Freddie Mac's Primary Mortgage Market Survey, the FRM averaged 3.53 percent with an average 0.7 point for the week ending January 31, 2013; last week it averaged 3.42 percent and a year ago it came in at 3.87 percent.

The 5-year FRM averaged 2.81 percent with an average 0.7 point this week, compared with 2.71 percent last week and 3.14 percent last year.

Five-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) averaged 2.70 percent this week with an average 0.6 point, up three basis points from last week and a year ago, when it was 2.80 percent.

The one-year Treasury-indexed ARM averaged 2.59 percent this week with an average 0.5 point, versus 2.57 percent last week and 2.76 percent at this time last year.

"Mortgage rates continued to trend upwards this week amid a growing economy led in part by the recovering housing market,” said Frank Nothaft, vice president and chief economist, Freddie Mac. “For instance, new home sales totaled 367,000 in 2012, the most in three years and reflected the first annual increase in seven years. Pending home sales in 2012 averaged its highest reading since 2006. All of these factors helped residential fixed investment to add nearly 0.4 percentage points to real GDP growth in the fourth quarter alone."

Bankrate

Bankrate.com reports its benchmark 30-year fixed mortgage rate rose to 3.77 percent this week, with an average of 0.29 discount and origination points. That's the biggest one week increase since last March.

The average 15-year fixed mortgage rate climbed back above the 3 percent mark for the first time since September, hitting 3.03 percent, while the larger jumbo 30-year fixed mortgage jumped to 4.17 percent. Adjustable rate mortgages were also higher, with the 3-year ARM increasing to 3.04 percent and the 7-year ARM settling at 2.96 percent, both six-month highs.

The last time mortgage rates were above five percent was Apr. 2011. At the time, the average 30-year fixed rate was 5.07 percent, meaning a $200,000 loan would have carried a monthly payment of $1,082.22. With the average rate now 3.77 percent, the monthly payment for the same size loan would be $928.50, a difference of $153 per month for anyone refinancing now.

The nation's economy cranked out 157,000 new jobs in January with, while the unemployment rate rose slightly -- to 7.9 percent. Figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show retail trade, construction, health care and wholesale trade added jobs last month.

The number of people out of work totaled 12.3 million, representing little change in January. Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.3 percent), teenagers (23.4 percent), whites (7.0 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics (9.7 percent) showed little or no change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.5 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) held steady at 4.7 million and accounted for 38.1 percent of the unemployed.

As it issued the January report, BLS revised its figures for nonfarm payroll employment for November to show a gain 247,000 from the initially reported 161,000, and for December from an increase of 155,000 to 196,000.

Jobs added

Employment in retail trade rose by 33,000 in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 20,000 in 2012. Within that sector, job growth continued in January in motor vehicle and parts dealers (+7,000), electronics and appliance stores (+5,000), and clothing stores (+10,000).

Construction added 28,000 jobs with nearly all the growth occurred in specialty trade contractors (+26,000). The gain was equally split between residential and nonresidential specialty trade contractors. Since reaching a low in January 2011, construction employment has grown by 296,000, with one-third of the gain occurring in the last four months.

Health care added 23,000 jobs in January, while wholesale trade employment grew 15,000 and mining added 6,000 jobs.

Losing ground

Transportation and warehousing lost 14,000 jobs in January, with air transportation employment decreasing by 5,000 in January.

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in January and has changed little -- on net -- since last July.

Employment in other major industries, including financial activities, professional and businesses services, leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

In January, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4 hours.

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by four cents -- to $23.78.  

Isabella Foods of El Paso, Texas, is recalling approximately 685 pounds of tamale products because of misbranding and undeclared allergens. The products contain wheat or soy, known allergens which are not declared on the label.

The following products are subject to recall:

• 36-oz. packages containing 12 "Isabella Foods of El Paso Green Chicken Tamales" and bearing the establishment number "P-13389" inside the USDA mark of inspection.
• 36-oz. packages containing 12 "Isabella Foods of El Paso Red Pork Tamales" and bearing the establishment number "EST. 1960" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were produced through Jan. 18, 2013, and distributed and sold to institutions and retail stores in the El Paso, Texas area.

The problem was discovered during a routine label review. An inspector determined that soy was a subcomponent of the textured vegetable protein ingredient in the green chicken tamale product but not declared on the label. During the same review, inspectors also found that wheat was a subcomponent of the masa flour ingredient in the red pork tamale product but not declared on the label.

There have been no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company's Owner, Nielson Guerra, at (915) 590-1899.