Home Modifications For Older Adults.

It is believed that home is where the heart is found. As such various authors have confirmed older adults, staying at home is a great privilege. Home is regarded to be a central place that is significant for daily life. Older adults dwelling in their specific homes always have a high level of independence and more freedom, but sometimes it imposes risks in their lives. This sanctuary depicts a sense of danger to older adults because of falls. According to the CDC statistics, one-third of older adults aged 65 years are subjected to unmanaged falls, which cause danger to their lives. The reports from the CDC raise concerns about the formulation of effective strategies that can reduce falls among older adults. It is essential to consider home modifications, for example, eliminating tripping hazards, improving lighting, and installing grab bars in the bathrooms. Therefore, it is important to prioritize home modifications purposely to reduce falls and enhance comfort for older adults.

Consequently, eliminating tripping hazards is one of the significant ways in which the risk of falls among older adults is reduced immensely. At home, preventing trip hazards can be effectively done by clearing clutter from the floors or stairs. According to Stark et al., falls occur among older adults in various ways, such as stepladders, loose mats and rugs, spills on the floor, and rains (Stark et al. 2021, p. 21). At-home tripping hazards are the c common ways that pose dangers and risks of falls to old adults. The risk of falls always occurs in older adults with balance difficulties or physically challenged (Stark et al. 2021, p. 21). To ensure that falls are reduced at home for the safety of older adults, it is paramount to eliminate clutters, place loose rugs and mats appropriately, and ensure the floor is free from spills. Therefore, by adhering to safe ways, older adults can easily live comfortably and confidently.

Lighting at home plays a significant role. For example, it provides comfort at night, improving a person’s overall mood and stabilizing the circadian rhythm. Improving lighting as a home modification reduces the chances of falls among older adults. According to research by Tholking et al., poor lighting is dangerous for the safety of older adults (Thölking et al. 2020, p. 4). As such, when older adults are in a dark environment, the chances of encountering falls are maximized. According to the article, poor lighting contributes to falls among older adults (Thölking et al., 2020, p. 7). As adults age, they encounter poor vision because of low light illumination. The aging eyes of older adults make them confront new environmental challenges, as poor lighting at home causes fatal falls since it acts as an obstacle to effective vision. It is more significant to ensure that lighting is improved wherever older adults are by using bright bulbs and task lighting for better vision.

Bathroom grab bars are the effective and simplest ways to prevent slips and fall. Falls can also be prevented effectively by installing grab bars in the bathrooms for older adults. Grab bars function in such a way that if an older adult has a loss of balance or dizziness. In the article “Consumer perspectives on grab bars,” Installation of grab bars reduces the chances of falls by 41% among older adults (Levine et al. 2022, p. 10). In daily living, bathrooms are perceived to be the most dangerous place that can easily cause falls for older adults and everyone. Installing grab bars in bathrooms, more so in washrooms, prevents falls and helps older adults to gain support for balancing. Generally, grab bars are affordable and, therefore, easy to be installed, which prevents unnecessary falls among older adults.

In conclusion, falls have raised various concerns among older adults, which requires much attention. However, home modifications effectively enhance safety and support for older adults from falls. Lighting improvement, installing grab bars, and eliminating tripping hazards indicates that older adults are safer. For caregivers and health professionals, it is important to ensure that policies are articulated purposely to reinforce safety at home by considering all ways of form modification. To recap, adhering strictly to enhancing safety at home for older adults significantly improves their lives and well-being.


Levine, I. C., Lau, S.-T., King, E. C., & Novak, A. C. (2022). Consumer perspectives on grab bars: A Canadian national survey of grab bar acceptability in homes. Frontiers in Public Health10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.915100

Stark, S., Keglovits, M., Somerville, E., Hu, Y.-L., Barker, A., Sykora, D., & Yan, Y. (2021). Home Hazard Removal to Reduce Falls Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. JAMA Network Open4(8), e2122044. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22044

Thölking, Thessa W., Lamers, Eef C. T., & Olde Rikkert, Marcel G. M. (2020). A Guiding Nightlight Decreases Fear of Falling and Increases Sleep Quality of Community-Dwelling, Older People: A Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation. Gerontology, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000504883

How Does The CHIPS Act Fit Into A Larger Framework Of U.S. Industrial Policy Aimed At National Security? Is It A Template For Future Legislation In Other Sectors?

The CHIPS Act represents a significant foray by the U.S. government into utilizing direct investment in industry to promote national security interests (Ip, 2023). The $53 billion allocated is intended to incentivize domestic semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on imports, particularly from geopolitically vulnerable Taiwan (WSJ video, 2023). Targeted subsidies and government funding harkens back to the Cold War era when massive military R&D spending seeded innovations with civilian applications like computing and telecommunications (Ip, 2023). However, the scale of the CHIPS Act eclipses past industrial policies and signals a paradigm shift. It remains to be seen if the CHIPS Act proves a template for similar legislation in sectors like batteries, biotech, or machine tools.

The strategic importance of semiconductors, the risks of import dependence, and the bipartisan consensus on countering China made government intervention compelling (WSJ video, 2023). Semiconductors’ dual civilian-military applications and the concentration of advanced chip fabrication in Taiwan presented a unique security vulnerability (Ip, 2023). Proponents argue that market forces failed to provide incentives to re-shore production, necessitating subsidies (WSJ video, 2023). Whether this logic extends to other industries depends on objective assessments of import reliance risks balanced against the inefficiencies of government intervention. Absent security externalities, most economists favor market competition to direct public investment. There are concerns that industrial policy could become a slippery slope to protectionism absent judicious criteria (The Economist, 2023). However, the complexity of global supply chains makes assumptions that domestic production guarantees security simplistic. Moreover, even with compelling security reasons, subsidies risk distorting markets if not properly designed and targeted. Furthermore, the easy political appeal of reshoring rhetoric could lead to industrial policies being approved based on speculative theories rather than empirical rigor.

Previous government efforts to bolster specific industries have proved risky, with failures like Solyndra reminding us of the difficulty in government attempting to pick winners better than markets (WSJ video, 2023). The CHIPS Act aims to avoid this by funding multiple companies rather than targeting just Intel or TSMC. The focus on leading-edge fabrication also steers funding where market concentration poses the greatest risks (WSJ video, 2023). Opening subsidies to foreign firms operating in the U.S. maintains competition. Safeguards against favoritism and requiring commercial viability can help ensure the effective use of public funds. However, executing industrial policy well remains challenging even with sound principles. The costs must be carefully weighed, given budget deficits and vast infrastructure needs.

The return to muscular industrial policy requires recalibrating traditional aversion to government intervention in markets (The Economist, 2023). However, the scale of Chinese industrial subsidies challenged notions of free market competition already. Faced with this reality, doing nothing was seen as posing unacceptable security risks. The CHIPS Act’s impacts will shape attitudes toward similar future policies. However, bipartisan cheering for reshoring and self-sufficiency suggests the political winds are now behind industrial policy. This enthusiasm warrants caution, as protectionist pressures often escalate beyond initial security justifications. Rigorous assessment and sunset provisions could help prevent overreach. Nevertheless, once breached, ideological barriers against subsidies rarely rebuild.

The expansive scope of the CHIPS Act sets a precedent and potential template for future industrial policy efforts aimed at shoring up domestic production capacity in sectors deemed important for national security. The legislation was passed with bipartisan support and backing from business interests, demonstrating there is an appetite for government intervention beyond just semiconductors (Ip, 2023). However, each industry presents unique considerations, and the production risks may not rise to the level seen with cutting-edge chip fabrication concentrated in Taiwan. While the CHIPS Act could embolden calls for analogous efforts to subsidize domestic manufacturing of batteries, solar panels, machine tools, and other products, policymakers would need to evaluate the costs and benefits of such proposals on their specific merits (The Economist, 2023). Automatic replication of the CHIPS model could lead to inefficient protectionism, so oversight is warranted. However, the Act does provide a basic framework of direct investment and tax incentives that could be adapted for industries where intervention is deemed essential for security.

Policies purportedly to enhance security should carefully diagnose specific market failures rather than maximize self-sufficiency, which risks economic inefficiency and global confrontation. A balanced strategic approach requires nuance to determine where industrial policy use is justified relative to tools like trade agreements, stockpiling, and diplomacy. While the CHIPS Act sets a precedent for leveraging industrial policy to serve national security interests, policymakers should be cautious about applying this model more broadly without sufficient justification. Only some industries present the same concentration risks seen with advanced semiconductor fabrication centered in Taiwan (WSJ video, 2023). The complexity of global supply chains means domestic production does not guarantee security, and import dependence is not inherently dangerous (The Economist, 2023). Industrial policy risks fostering inefficient redundancy, protectionism, and zero-sum confrontation if improperly balanced with international trade and cooperation. Leaders should refrain from reflexively equating self-sufficiency with security absent rigorous assessment of specific vulnerabilities. A principled strategic approach requires objectively determining where markets fail to provide for essential security needs due to externalities like information asymmetries. Even when government intervention is warranted, transparency, oversight, and sunset provisions that force reevaluation help guard against political favoritism and bureaucratic overreach. Industrial policy may, at times, serve security, but only if implemented judiciously, sparingly, and in alignment with broader economic interests.

Industrial policies to advance national security interests could become co-opted as tools for protectionist ends. Historically, protectionism has often arisen and been justified based on exaggerated or unfounded threats used as political pretexts (Ip, 2023). For instance, the semiconductor industry was subjected to trade restrictions and domestic content mandates in the 1980s, predicated on fears of Japanese dominance that proved largely unfounded and economically costly (Ip, 2023). Today, subsidies or local production requirements limiting foreign competition could be pushed through under the guise of security based on speculative arguments about vulnerabilities. However, such protectionism tends to breed inefficiency, raise costs to consumers and industry, stifle innovation, and harm international cooperation.

To avoid the pitfall of protectionism masquerading as security-driven industrial policy, policymakers should rely on impartial, empirical assessments of supply chain risks and vulnerabilities rather than unfounded fears or industry lobbying. Transparency about the rationale and process for awarding subsidies helps guard against political favoritism influencing decisions. Rigorous criteria should be established to determine where market failures genuinely impose externalities versus industries where competition and openness drive growth. For the CHIPS Act, the concentration of advanced semiconductor fabrication in Taiwan presented a fairly clear supply vulnerability, justifying intervention (WSJ video, 2023). However, conditions warranting support on national security grounds may only exist in some sectors. Excessive use of industrial policies could undermine security by hampering economic dynamism and fostering international tensions. Therefore, policymakers should be judicious and strategic in deploying such interventionist tools, limiting use only to where needed to remedy market failures. Sunset provisions forcing periodic reevaluation of subsidies and similar programs help prevent permanent inefficient allocation of resources. Cooperation and coordination with allies to avoid unnecessary duplication also reduce risks of industrial policy devolving into welfare for protected industries.


Ip, G. (2023, February 28). Past U.S. Industrial Policy Offers Lessons, Risks for Chips Program. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/past-u-s-industrial-policy-offers-lessons-risks-for-chips-program-df48c4d1#:~:text=Thelessonisthatindustrial

The Economist. (2023). Subsidies and protection for manufacturing will harm the world economy. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/07/13/subsidies-and-protection-for-manufacturing-will-harm-the-world-economy#:~:text=Aswereportthisweek

WSJ. (n.d.). Why the Chips Act Signals a Return to “Industrial Policy” | WSJ. Www.youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8xwEB_co2o

How We Are Priming Some Kids For College – And Others For Prison

Social inequality and injustice remain urgent in our society, with certain companies facing extremely demanding situations in getting access to possibilities for schooling and navigating the crook justice gadget. In the TED talk with the aid of Alice Goffman on “How we are priming some children for college — and others for prison,” the speaker highlights the stark comparison between the paths that a few youths are set upon, both main them to better education or pushing them into the confines of the jail gadget. (TED, 2015). This idea-frightening communication raises questions on the underlying elements contributing to this disparity and requires reflection on capacity answers. By analyzing the statistical information supplied and relating it to concepts from the studying modules on introductory business data, we will gain insights into the magnitude of the problem and discover avenues for addressing these systemic troubles.

Upon watching Alice Goffman’s TED talk, numerous inferences may be crafted from the information provided. Firstly, it will become glaring that a systemic difficulty may be at play that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities. The talk highlights how elements inclusive of poverty, lack of resources, and limited entry to exceptional training contribute to the higher probability of individuals from those communities finishing up inside the crook justice device rather than pursuing better education.

The statistics provided by Goffman provide valuable insights into the significance of the problem. They screen alarming incarceration charges among young people, especially those from deprived backgrounds. These records emphasize the urgency of addressing the problem and enable us to impeach the societal elements that contribute to those disparities. By understanding and analyzing the statistics, we can parent styles and developments that further emphasize the need for systemic trade.

One key takeaway from the statistics is the correlation between social and monetary elements and the pathways to which individuals from marginalized groups are directed closer. (1.1 Definitions of Statistics, Probability, and Key Terms – Statistics | OpenStax, 2020). The information underscores the importance of addressing the root causes of inequality, which include poverty, lack of opportunities, and systemic biases. It highlights the need for interventions that concentrate on offering equal access to schooling, mentorship packages, and guide networks, as those factors have a giant impact on the destiny possibilities of individuals.

Furthermore, the statistics within the speak humanize the problem by sharing non-public memories and reports. These anecdotes help to place faces to the records and offer a deeper understanding of the demanding situations confronted by individuals stuck within the cycle of incarceration. They shed light on the emotional and social effects of being primed for prison rather than college, making the problem greater relatable and compelling.

In summary, the inferences drawn from the video suggest that systemic troubles are contributing to the disproportionate pathway toward incarceration for people from marginalized groups. The information provided underscores the urgency of addressing those troubles and spotlights the significance of presenting the same opportunities and help structures for all individuals, irrespective of their heritage. By analyzing the data, we advantage clearer information about the problem handy. We might propose imposing proof-primarily based answers to combat social injustice and promote equal entry to training and opportunities.


Definitions of Statistics, Probability, and Key Terms – Statistics | OpenStax. (2020). Openstax.org. https://openstax.org/books/statistics/pages/1-1-definitions-of-statistics-probability-and-key-terms

‌TED. (2015). Alice Goffman: How we are priming some kids for college — and others for prison [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Dj9M71JAc