Top 10 (salary) and bottom 10 College degrees

[cdev]

High Deductible Health Plans are bad news, because they leave people on the hook for huge costs. The insurance companies are EXPERTS at collecting money for decades from people when they are healthy and then dumping them when they get sick, poof, like that. As long as we are trapped into coddling them, and cajoling them to keep them profitable to avoid the "moral hazard" of having to be responsible stewards on health care quality and afford-ability like governments almost everywhere else, they have got us trapped.  And then the back room trade deals make it irreversible and permanent, making it so no future President or Congress can change a damn thing except to make it worse. And they have to lie about it because what legislator can tell their constituents that?

This change arguably has already occurred, 20 years ago in 1995-1998 with GATS, which barred all the reforms in the table below:


-------------------

Health system reforms and potential GATS violations -  (Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf )

Health system reform/regulation	GATS provisions potentially violated
Implementation of a single-payer national health insurance system	Art/ VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits on number of suppliers-bars single payer), Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)
Market-based coverage expansions through subsidies and insurance firm regulation	Art. VI:5(a)(i) (restrictions not more burdensome than necessary to insure the quality of the service), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits), Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction), Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms), Art. XVII:3 (modifies conditions of competition)
Reforming the privatization of Medicare	Art. VIII:4 (establishment of “new monopolies”), Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits)
Specialty hospital regulation	Art. XVI:2(a) (numerical limits) Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction), Art. XVI:2(e)(legal form of supplier) Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)
Catastrophic reinsurance	Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)
Disease management regulation	Art. XVI:2(e) (legal form of supplier)
Medical-loss ratios	Art. XVI:2(b) (total value of transaction)
Nonprofit hospital taxes	Art. XVII:1 (national treatment of foreign firms)

(So this shows that all of the alleged "good" things about "Obamacare" are likely to be challenged in the WTO as soon as it gets jurisdiction- which means as soon as it becomes international trade, thats the plan, so that the crisis they created can be "cured" by their race to the bottom. Numerous other fields will be subjected to the same "disciplines on domestic regulation" Licensing and visa laws- i.e. domestic regulations- have to be conformed so they do not contradict the goals of the agreements - increasing foreign trade being paramount.  (This isnt wholly new- just little known up until now-  see here: http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/42/num1/Worster55.pdf )

Next is a rare published document from the pending plurilateral services agreement -   HERE:>>>  http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf  (Those talks are almost concluded in Geneva ) The negotiating goals for Europe. Warning. Virtually none of the very few people who have written about the file seem to understand it, the rest haven't. Which is very embarrassing for me to point out - I would like to frame people in NGOs who study such things professionally as doing their jobs, but it has to be said. And very badly have screwed up by their responses to it. Its illustrative of how obscure this area is. SO, please heed my warning- the entire document has to be looked up line by line (and all previous documents going back to the late 80s- especially GATS- every bit of it refenenced and also especially - a survey done of the critical  literature and international jurisprudence on the portions referenced ( !) they must be consulted to understand it.  Which might take several days of an average persons time to do. It needs to be done because nothing else will effect our future world more than this thing.

 Also, much more is on Wikileaks but again, the commentary on WL is LACKING THE CRUCIAL CONTEXT FROM THE PAST DEALS, lets not forget they were drafted in the late 1980s and signed, without much thought as to their content by legislators, early to mid 1990s- of variable quality, some is really good, others are really bad, and in critical ways. Nobody wants to get these things, its understandable why. But assume the worst, its likely to be that way.

As far as what will salaries be?-  Please read this: http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdf   - The point of view in the Third World - which is gearing up to provide innumerable currently expensive professional services. High US minimum wages (!) are a trade barrier to keep their (doctors and nurses and engineers-(?) ) out, they seem to be saying. Worth reading.)

[cdev]

is anybody here reading any of the things I am saying, please let me know that you see them because from the discussion up to here I am guessing you dont- Especially follow and read the links because they show you sonething very important which the US media has not told us a shred about.

 LINKS HERE:>>> 

This is Nick Skala's brilliant paper- Must read.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This is an explanation about how Canadian healthcare saves money. One important point is, a stitch in time saves nine.

http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Mythbusters/Myth_User_Fees_EN.sflb.ashx

See the papers here: http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-research-the-case-for-a-national-health-program

Also, people need to read up on T i S A -

http://www.cuts-geneva.org/pacteac/images/Documents/EAC%20Forum/Forum17/EAC%20Geneva%20Forum-%20WTO%20Note%2017.pdf

BTW, I am against Obamacare too, because its a deception written by the health insurance industry, that keeps healthcare unaffordable and forces people to choose between underinsurance- inadequate health insurance, health care and rent or food. Its designed to fail - It was done the way it was because of bad trade ideology, which basically the American people were never told about. the US media has - over twenty plus years, offered us practically zero zero zero coverage of THAT. Zero. meanwhile, the US is pushing these deals in our name, that force other countries to privatize their healthcare and educational systems. ending healthcare and education as a right. Doing something thats arguably really bad, which has to be hidden from us, in our names.

Re: Obamacare- As can be shown in this paper, most of the core proposals in "managed competition" had all already been attempted, and had failed,  they already knew it would fail - see here: Woolhandler, et al “State Health Reform Flatlines,” International Journal of Health Services, Volume 38, Number 3, Pages 585-592, 2008 link: http://www.pnhp.org/states_flatline/State%20Health%20Reform%20Flatlines%20IJHS%20-%202008.pdf

- however, the GOPs non proposal is even worse- both will trap us in the private insurance trap by globalizing the provision of low quality, high profit health care, the opposite of what needs to be done-

Single payer, on the other hand, simplifies the whole system, and the fact is, the fact that everybody uses it is what keeps systems good. If you give the rich a way to go to the head of theline or pay extra for better, that - intentionally, as shown by a great many papers, leads to privatization and the death of a thousand cuts for a health care or educational system. See discussion here- http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/putting_health_first.pdf  and here also http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm and http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf



The same trade deals - for the same reasons, also pose a threat to affordable public education and independent scientific research, globally.
Education, too- globally - see

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/tisa-versus-public-services

http://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/15-02-05/EUA_Council_statement_on_TTIP_and_TISA.aspx

>>  http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf?sfvrsn=0

https://www.tni.org/en/article/how-tisa-strolls-off-with-our-services

http://www.ifut.ie/content/etuce-trade-services-agreement-tisa-threat-quality-education

[Zero999]

I think top quality healthcare being free for everybody from birth to death would be a hugely positive thing,

Don't you think everyone getting a mansion is a good thing?

How about everyone getting personal chaffers? Or nice clothes? Or quality belts to hang their pants? What about nice cars and some good looking or handsome maids? ...

Don't you think it is unfair that only the super riches like you can afford to have nice things like that in life?

Those are all, what most people would consider to be luxury items you've listed there. Why do you consider decent quality healthcare to be a luxury?

Perhaps you could say that only the rich should be able to afford their children a decent education.

In all other developed parts of the world, decent quality healthcare is considered to be a necessity not a luxury.

and thats what I want.

Then you can have all you want - just leave the rest of us alone.

I want to wear shorts every day; I want to eat fatty foods; I want to go to bed at 7pm; I want to drive old beat-up gas-gazzling turcks; I want ....

Eat what you want, go to bed when you like but don't drive dirty trucks which pollute the air I breath.

That's why I am against Obamacare.

I don't like Obamacare either. Obama should do more but the insurance companies have too much power and stop him.

[dannyf]

So, don't underestimate the cost of having these nut cases in power.

Being as good a con as he is, Obama is incredibly honest when he said that "election has consequences".

Too bad voters ignored that.

[dannyf]

is anybody here reading any of the things I am saying

Probably not. You are a prolific quoter: you copy-and-paste content and links. Unless you are able to articulate what you copy-and-pasted in concise and short sentences of your own, you haven't understood it.

If you haven't understood it, what's the point for others to have a discussion with you?

[cdev]

I have understood this.  And I'm trying to explain something really important to you about future wages.

You haven't understood me.

Here is Sanya Reid Smith's good explanation.




BTW, I agree with you on Obama's speaking abilities.

[dannyf]

You haven't understood me.

If you cannot explain it to others in a way that they can understand it, you haven't understood it yourself.

[mtdoc]

cdev-

Thanks for posting those things.  Unfortunately your points will be lost on those stuck in the false Dem vs Repub, Liberal versus Conservative dichotomy. 

The global Neoliberal economic agenda will continue to be pushed by the corporate owned political sock puppets on both sides of the isle (Clinton, Bush, Rubio, Cruz being the prime current examples). 

These are not simple issues for most to grasp and the workings of the WTO and global trade agreements are obscured enough to prevent the masses from connecting the dots. The corporate owned media has no interest in educating the public. It doesn't help that these issues are complex enough to prevent their explanation in the simple sound bites the masses have come to expect.  It's sad but true that so many need to be spoon fed information.

[cdev]

The gist of it is that the uncertainly level and especially the chances of making a decent income nomatter what you do are likely to fall a lot in the coming years, and most people will be lucky if they can just keep a roof over their heads. The changes are likely to hit a lot of people who up until now have been able to stay fairly solvent, in particularly the owners of domestic (one country) businesses. Because these deals are likely to be giving multinational firms huge advantages that no one country firm can compete with, especially on labor costs. People have no idea.

"No wage parity requirements" No "necessity tests" or "economic needs tests". The WTO or RGFS (Real Good Friends of Services) are likely to gain jurisdiction once something like selling across state lines creates an environment that foreign firms want to operate in. It may already have happened. Via aquisition. As soon as a multinational company owns a US health insurance firm, then the ability to go to public health care ends forever. At least thats what they say.

A case - the US Online Gambling case between Antigua and barbuda and the US over online gambling services is illustrative of how these "openings" can happen silently and invisibly.

Services liberalisation intends to lower the cost of medicine and increase the profitability to the many corporate middlemen, simultaneously, and that may hit the medical profession hard, doctors and nurses. Teaching and academia also.

Despite the fact that doctors are needed in developing countries, the prospect of working in a developed country, even if a staffing firm talks a third or a half of your meager salary and you have to live six to a room in a dorm with your other co-workers, is alluring, especially for newly minted professionals.

[dannyf]

You seemed to have touched on three distinct topics in one post: income uncertainty, online gambling and service liberalization. You provided a lot of assertions and but much analysis as to why and how those topics are connected.

Take income uncertainty for example:

The gist of it is that the uncertainly level and especially the chances of making a decent income nomatter what you do are likely to fall a lot in the coming years, and most people will be lucky if they can just keep a roof over their heads.

Why? What are the facts and analysis that led you to the conclusion? Assume you have 30 seconds to answer that.

Income uncertainty is not a big problem: savings and insurance / unemployment benefits for example can address that effectively.

How would "income uncertainty" lead to "giving multinational firms huge advantages"? ....

Again, you will be a lot more credible if you don't copy-and-paste. Instead, roll up your sleeves and present your original analysis here.

[cdev]

Well, market liberalisation means that the framing of services provision (non-manufacturing jobs) as follows is accepted:

Under the WTO-GATS definition which is continued in TiSA there are four modes of supplying services: cross-border trade, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and presence of natural persons.

Cross-border supply is defined to cover services flows from the territory of one Member into the territory of another Member (e.g. banking or architectural services transmitted via telecommunications or mail);

Consumption abroad refers to situations where a service consumer (e.g. tourist or patient) moves into another Member's territory to obtain a service;

Commercial presence implies that a service supplier of one Member establishes a territorial presence, including through ownership or lease of premises, in another Member's territory to provide a service (e.g. domestic subsidiaries of foreign insurance companies or hotel chains); and

Presence of natural persons consists of persons of one Member entering the territory of another Member to supply a service (e.g. accountants, doctors or teachers). The Annex on Movement of Natural Persons specifies, however, that Members remain free to operate measures regarding citizenship, residence or access to the employment market on a permanent basis.

The reason I referred to online gambling case is the fact that the "opening" of the US market to Antigua's online gambling services (in the US online gambling case) was seen to have occurred without any action on our part, invisibly.

However, it made an irreversible change in our ability to control an important "service sector" gambling. 

The point I am trying to make is that any international activity whatsoever then triggers this invisible, irreversible change - and it may and certainly will then occur in ANY service sector no matter how important - and then our ability to regulate that service sector through the traditional methods then vanishes. irreversibly. Democratic control (meaning control by voting) After all in a world of highly mobile capital, ias its claimed that suddenly now, unlike the past several thousands of years, "investors need stability". That's framed as more important than anything in this new, completely amoral new way of doing things.

Otherwise, for example, in a huge depression, people might be dying, etc, and there might be political pressure on elected officials to help the poor starving indigenous workers, preventing maximum advantage from being taken of them.

Do you get it. National laws cant conflict with the new international rules, if they do, they have to be changed.

However the public is guaranteed to not be told this. They go on as before, however, the ability of senators, congresspeople, presidents, etc, to actually change these things, in a nation is severely limited. Permanently.

The exceptions are so extremely narrow that they could be said to only very very rarely, almost never apply.

The reason multinational service providers gain a large advantage is they have a different regulatory and cost environment. Additionally, they gain an ability to challenge local, national, etc, laws they can successfully frame as having an adverse effect on their business under a nuber of different kinds of legal standards which are (by design) TOTALLY unfamilliar to Americans- The ability to challenge something like a domestic regulation and have a international body staffed with corporate trade lawyers just change it, is not something Americans or people from other countries are ready for because its completely arbitrary but the effect it could have could easily be life changing. Nobody is going to get loans forgiven because the minimum wage or the wage rates in a field change substantially. That wont happen. What is hapening is that risks of all kinds are being shifted to those least able to pay for them because the other involved groups have more political power.

The indigenous workers of a member state will likely have to bear the burden. Various laws and standards vary around the globe and the best that workers in a country will be able to hope for is that some kind of lowest common denominator gets observed, but the chances to me seem that many wage and safety laws will diminish rapidly due to countries, states and companies desperately trying to get a diminishing pool of business. This is called a "race to the bottom".

US companies will want some of that business so they will pressure jurisdictions to eliminate laws of any kind that prevent moneymaking. So they can bid internationally.  But thse changes will apply to everybody because of national treatment and most favored nation.

Its even possible that automation will be making it possible to automate so many tasks that fewer and fewer jobs will need to be staffed.

See http://www.wti.org/fileadmin/user_upload/nccr-trade.ch/wp4/publications/Working_Paper_20143.pdf

simply their ability to pay whatever their home country expects of them. Since workers are not here permanently, wage parity requirements, quotas economic needs tests, visa requirements, etc, all cannot act as a barrier to frustrate the goals of the agreement. Low wages is a serious advantage that low wage countries view as their main competitive advantage. If they can pay an engineer ten dollars a day they can and will use that advantage to get work. As long as its not permanent, a situation which remains undefined, its legal. What they pay their employees may (I think it likely will) become off limits to us. We wont know what they pay. How big of a motivator will it be to cash strapped communities to pay so much less for services. A big one, as taxes will be vanishing as lots of people lose their jobs and homes, businesses etc. and are replaced by other people.

[Rick Law]

So, don't underestimate the cost of having these nut cases in power.

Being as good a con as he is, Obama is incredibly honest when he said that "election has consequences".

Too bad voters ignored that.

Gotta give you that one.  You are right, he was "honest" about that.  He also came right out and talked about driving electricity cost up, so forth.  His interview with a Chicago news radio clearly described his lack of respect of the Constitution.

I put honest in quote because while he said that every now and again, those were (in my judgement) his slip-ups rather than his intended message.

This is (was) a thread to discuss college degree salary.  This is not a political forum.  So lengthy discussion on politics/tax/politicians/nut-cases would not be appropriate here.

[cdev]

Obama is a symptom rather than a cause.

[dannyf]

as follows is accepted

If you can do all of that within 30 seconds, in a concise / short paragraph, you have understood it.

[cdev]

There have to be ways to prevent this and prevent a global race to the bottom because- in my opinion, it isnt good for ANYBODY. Nobody will walk away better off because of it. Not even the big multinationals that are pushing it, IMHO. They are just doing it because they can.

[dannyf]

Let me dissect it for you:

There have to be ways to prevent this and prevent a global race to the bottom

So you want to prevent competition? Is that all this is about?

because- in my opinion, it isnt good for ANYBODY.

Why? since, by your account, everyone is doing it, unless you assume that they are all stupid, you have a high hurdle to clear in articulating why it everyone is doing things so detrimental to their own interests.

Nobody will walk away better off because of it.

Why?

Not even the big multinationals that are pushing it, IMHO. They are just doing it because they can.

No corporation is in the business of doing things "because they can". They are in the business of making money (="better off").

You have basically painted a picture where everyone is going crazy making themselves worse off, and you are the only one who sees that but you don't know how to get out of it.

It doesn't paint a very good picture of YOU.

[cdev]

I think the cause was that they estimated 20+ years ago that automation would take much longer than it has been, a very common error. So they overvalued the value of the markets that they wanted to trade those (other people's) jobs for. because if automation goes as fast as it is now or (100% chance of this one) much faster (because its increasing exponentially) its not such a good deal for them because the market access they get will be to a market thats not so robust (in South Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) .

[dannyf]

so productivity gains, not competition, are the route cause of "income uncertainty"?

I think the cause was that they estimated...

Who are "they"?

It helps you if your writing can be more concise.

[cdev]

...
Take income uncertainty for example:

The gist of it is that the uncertainly level and especially the chances of making a decent income nomatter what you do are likely to fall a lot in the coming years, and most people will be lucky if they can just keep a roof over their heads.

Why? What are the facts and analysis that led you to the conclusion? Assume you have 30 seconds to answer that.

Income uncertainty is not a big problem: savings and insurance / unemployment benefits for example can address that effectively.

!!!  I think you're being quite overly optimistic about the generosity of both business and governments. Remember the competition to lower costs will be quite fierce. If a shirt only costs a penny, do you wash it or buy a new one every time?  Workers will be cheap like that. Look at the energy, domestic service, and construction service industries in the Middle East. Thats a glimpse of the future.

Remember, because public education is being framed as a form of theft of profits from the increasingly influential global educational brands, it is being phased out, by treaty. Its being framed as a theft from corporations. Because people wont buy something they can get for less than its market value. So they will have to do without.

The cost of education may become quite high, and meanwhile, due to not having that education, many people will not just be struggling, they will have no work and no chance of getting any, ever. Will they be able to afford water, food, or any of the valuable necessities of life? Thats their business! Look, in a way I am trying to be sarcastic here, but I am telling you the truth, not what you want to hear, like politicians who are embarrassed to tell people they gave all these rights away, already.

Workers will have to compete for jobs like they do today except there will be far fewer jobs. That means wages must fall, a lot. They will make literally nothing. Maybe food but not enough to survive well, just enough to make it through the day.

Example of what I mean: http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/2008-01-kwon.htm  of course, machines will do all that work in the richer countries, but in some poor countries, people may still be able to work.

Gestational surrogacy may remain one of the few areas where people cannot be replaced, for a while.

What work exists may still be done, but by telepresence workers from other parts of the globe - (or physical workers here due to services liberalisation.)

Why pay more?

Those who have very low costs, (child workers) and whose status is such that they can become pawns in the game more readily (for example, people in debtors prisons, having been duly convicted of a crime) will be working, (later AIs will do much of that work.)

See: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2

How would "income uncertainty" lead to "giving multinational firms huge advantages"? ....

Again, you will be a lot more credible if you don't copy-and-paste. Instead, roll up your sleeves and present your original analysis here.

[zapta]

Lacking that level of skills, many people will make literally nothing. First telepresence workers from other parts of the globe - or physical workers here due to services liberalisation, will be working, (later AIs will do much of that work.)

Making people more dependent on the government will not help them competing with more motivated people from other countries.

Basically you outlined here a socialist plan that tried in a few places, ended up with oppressed regimes and failed miserably.

It's not up to you to tell other free citizens how to live their lives or how to spend their money.  Just because you want 'free' things doesn't justify forcing other to pay for it.

[miguelvp]

You should not believe everything you read on research of the brain. Maybe it's true the frontal cortex shrink, but as for learning I call the study BS.

I've learned quite a bit over the course of my existence and at age 50+ I'm not slowing down a bit. Just picked up electronics just a mere two years ago, I can do Verilog, VHDL and learning the ins and outs of particular MCUs all of which I had no prior knowledge and of course learning all the toolchains requried. On top of that I've been keeping up with my career which happens to be programming, that includes C++11 and ramping up to develop on the new consoles out there XB1 and PS4 with all their new complexities.

As for education and finding work etc. BS as well, it's in no ones interest to have a consumer group that can't consume.
Work hard and don't stop growing your skills.

[cdev]

I agree with you completely, but on an individual business level nobody wants to pay. Its like the OP was saying, everybody wants to take something from (them). Remember the care of the poor sick(climate change will render huge numbers of people permanently sick from various illnesses which would cost too much to diagnose and cure given their incomes) and disabled will likely be outsourced so they will be on the other side of the planet, perhaps or maybe even on Mars. (just kidding there, I predict maybe Nauru.)

[miguelvp]

I for one don't mind paying taxes, well I do but I really don't mind.
I do fork well over 1/3 of what I make already with no other return than a somewhat healthy economy that maintains my way of life and that's enough payback for me.

Politics aside and your random abuses of power non withstanding.

I DO pride myself of being part of the backbone of this great country of ours even with its flaws and freeloaders.

But the current generations are a bit too entitled, because overall they had it easy, so they demand a lot and give little. Of course I'm exaggerating but it's a trend. Not a good trend in my opinion. Government or anybody owes you anything, be part of the whole or get the f out.

[cdev]

You misunderstood what i was trying to say, I think. You're still thinking like its the 20th century and its simply a matter of personal ability or initiative.

But now suppose current trends continue.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

The charity said that, in 2010, the 388 richest people owned the same wealth as the poorest 50%. This dropped to 80 in 2014 before falling again in 2015.

Now 62 people own half the world's wealth, down from 388 just six years ago.

We all grew up in s society with public education, but what if the next generation doesn't? If the only reason to educate people was for them to make you rich, right? Suppose the need for 6.9 billion out of the 7 billion vanishes. the need for all those people to work is absent. Its not personal, they just aren't needed, unless they can do something better than anybody else in the world can do that thing. And most people can't, maybe they are just not quite there. Or maybe they are nowhere close, and never will be. their lives have been too focused on their families, not making money.

the point I am trying to make is, its a race nobody wins. because most jobs are simply going away. We're not winning anything by getting rid of all thats good about government like public education and health care, all we're doing is guaranteeing a crippled, dysfunctional society that ends up in some kind of nightmare scenario.

By the way, this is happening in the whole world, not just the US, the wealthy are circling the wagons and using trade deals to future proof their wealth, in a very aggressive manner, taking advantage of the trust people place in politicians out of habit. Its certainly happening in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, thats for sure.

[miguelvp]

You are in the most leveled play field in the planet. Not all of the 1 percenters started that way.

What's next? even field Olympic games? So the best athletes will have added handicaps to give a chance to the rest?

"S/he is too good and I deserve to win an Olympic medal just as anyone else"

While we are at it, maybe everyone deserves a Nobel prize as well.

Edit:  misspelled medal.