Employee engagement and morale have taken a beating in the pandemic. As companies scramble to adapt to new remote workplace realities, leaders are stepping up their efforts to provide mentorship and career development opportunities, and for good reason.

According to a new study from online scheduling platform Doodle, 49 percent of employees don’t feel like they’re getting enough training, coaching, or mentoring to advance their careers. On top of that, 50 percent of employees said their careers have stalled or even regressed.

Now with the pandemic–and all the uncertainty and stress that it’s brought with it–feelings of self-doubt have grown stronger and become louder in employees’ minds.

For some employees, being recognized for doing a job well or for taking on leadership qualities (regardless of their title) can do wonders for their confidence and self-esteem. So, constant recognition and growth can help self-doubting employees regain their confidence, take more ownership, and actualize their career goals.

That said, organizations need to bring mentorship and career development to the forefront of their corporate strategy, mission, values, and culture.

Career development is not a one-way street

The Doodle study highlights a huge disparity between what employees need to grow professionally and what their employers are providing. On the one hand, 32 percent of employees want clear direction on their roles and responsibilities and 15 percent want guidance and support for their career-development goals. If you think about these stats, that’s 47 percent who want their bosses to play an active role in their career growth.

Employees understand that career growth is not a one-way street. To meet career goals, managers must build rapport with their people. That includes being able to have honest one-on-one conversations about what a career path looks like for your employee at the company. These conversations can only happen

Oct. 6 (UPI) — The price of the diabetes drug insulin is more than eight times higher in the United States than in 32 other high-income nations combined, according to a RAND Corp. analysis released Tuesday.

The average price per unit across all types of insulin in the United States is $98.70, which is just over six times the drug’s average price in Canada — about $15.70 — and just under six times the average price in Britain and Japan — about $16.70 — the researchers said.

And the average U.S. price is nearly 28 times as high as that of Turkey, which is about $3.60, they said.

“This analysis provides the best available evidence about how much more expensive insulin is in the U.S. than in other nations around the world,” RAND senior policy researcher Andrew Mulcahy said in a statement.

“Prices in the U.S. are always much higher than other nations, even if you assume steep discounts to manufacturer prices in the United States,” he said.

Insulin is used to control blood sugar levels in people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The drug is sold in many different forms, with different chemical properties and different duration of effects.

List prices in the United States have increased dramatically over the past decade, according to Mulcahy and his colleagues.

For example, the average U.S. wholesale-acquisition price for rapid-acting, long-acting, and short-acting insulin increased by 15% to 17% per year from 2012 to 2016, based on one estimate.

The RAND study used manufacturer prices for the analysis. Researchers compiled estimates of international insulin prices by examining industry data on insulin sales and volume for 2018, comparing the United States to 32 nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Although the ratio of U.S. prices to other-country prices varied depending

It’s been said before, but it is worth saying again: diversity pays — but not in terms of checking boxes and tokenism. In a new report from the UCLA-based Center for Scholars and Storytellers titled “Beyond Checking A Box: A Lack of Authentically Inclusive Representation Has Costs at the Box Office”, researchers found that bringing authentic diversity to film improves financial performance at the box office while a lack of diversity can result in losses for studios.

Films like the Latino-fronted Pixar animated pic Coco, Marvel Studios’ Black Panther and Warner Bros’ Crazy Rich Asians proved that racially diverse casts can bring in highly profitable grosses at the box office, according to UCLA’s Hollywood Diversity Report produced by a group of UCLA researchers including Darnell Hunt, dean of the College’s division of social sciences. However, when it comes to writing and directing jobs, underrepresented voices still have quite a way to go.

The report which was published today analyzed 109 movies from 2016 to 2019 and found that movie studios can expect to lose up to $130 million per film when their offerings lack authentic diversity in their storytelling. Researchers found that large-budget films (a budget of $159 million or more) are subject to a significant cost in the opening weekend box office for a lack of diversity.

They estimate a $159 million movie will lose $32.2 million, approximately 20% of the its budget, in first weekend box office, with a potential total loss of $130 million, 82% of its budget. For a $78 million budget movie will lose $13.8 million in its opening weekend for a lack of diversity, with a potential total loss of $55.2 million, 71% of its budget.

“We asked, what is the cost of lacking diversity? Hollywood is a business, and no business wants

Every three years, the Federal Reserve releases a study on consumer finances that is a stockpile of data on everything from household net worth to incomes. The 2019 Fed survey confirms statements I have made previously regarding how the Fed’s monetary interventions made the top 10% more prosperous than ever. They just left the vast majority of Americans behind.

While we will address the statistical data, there is also the anecdotal evidence that supports this thesis. Since 2008, there have been rising calls for socialistic policies such as universal basic incomes, increased social welfare, and even a two-time candidate for President who was an admitted socialist. Such things would not occur if “prosperity” was flourishing within the economy.

Fed Or Growth

“The disparity between the Fed’s interventions, the stock market, and the real economy has become abundantly clear. For 90% of Americans, there has not been, nor will there be, any economic recovery.”

Fed Top 10% Richer, Fed Study: How We Made The Top 10% Richer Than Ever.

Stocks Are Not The Economy

Take a close look at the chart above.

Companies derive their revenue from the consumption of goods, products, and services they produce. It is logical that stock price appreciation, over the long term, has roughly equated to economic growth. However, that relationship has become unhinged since the financial crisis due to the Fed’s interventions and suppressed interest rates.

From January 1st, 2009, through the end of July, the stock market has risen by an astounding 203% or roughly 18% annualized. With such a large gain in the financial markets, there should be a commensurate growth rate in the economy.

After four massive Federal Reserve-driven “Quantitative Easing” programs, a maturity extension program, bailouts of TARP, TGLP, TGLF, etc., HAMP, HARP, direct bailouts of Bear Stearns, AIG, GM, bank supports, etc., all of which totaled more than $36 Trillion, cumulative real economic

Pandemics became the top concern for insurance professionals this year as the COVID-19 crisis roils the industry worldwide.

Infectious diseases and pandemics were ranked as the most significant risks to society over the next five to 10 years in a study published Thursday by French insurer AXA SA. That’s a reversal from last year, when climate change was seen as the biggest concern. (Editor’s note: The report is available to download here).

COVID-19 is proving to be a major challenge for insurers, especially those that provide cover for canceled events such as sports matches and concerts. Disputes over coverage have led some policyholders to take legal action, with AXA recently losing a lawsuit against five restaurant operators. The insurer said it will appeal the ruling.

The survey of 2,600 insurance professionals in 53 countries, found that 56% of the respondents consider pandemics one of the top five emerging risks, up from 23% in 2019. Climate change is now the second biggest worry overall, but the views vary geographically as it remains the top priority in Europe but falls to the third place in the U.S. and Asia.

The reduced emphasis on climate change “is concerning, especially among our American and Asian respondents, as we believe that shorter-term issues around the pandemic should not completely overshadow longer-term threats,” AXA Chief Executive Officer Thomas Buberl said in a statement.

The European insurance industry has been working on ideas to develop state-backed solutions to protect businesses against future pandemics. The French government, which has sought public comment on a series of proposals this summer, hopes to complete work on a coverage plan by the end of the year.

Photograph: Medics from Beijing Fengsheng Special Hospital of Traditional Medical Traumatology and Orthopaedics on June 24, 2020 prepare for their shift at the Jinrong Street