A journalism professor of yours truly, Jon Sandberg, who also served in key positions for several Connecticut governors, had an interesting technique that he frequently deployed in seminars. A student would pose a question and Sandberg would say, "That's a good question. Is it acceptable and ethical to publish information that you know would show ethical and other lapses by the current president, if you know that information would also harm innocent individuals? That's a good question."

Then Sandberg would grab his cup of coffee and walk to the window side of the classroom, and stare out the window, sipping his coffee, saying nothing, for an eternity. Eventually, a student or two would begin the discussion.

What's a good question for today? Maybe this: where have all the consumers gone in the U.S. economy? BloggingStocks had a chance to grill economist Peter Dawson on the matter, and he has a few theories.

The first concerns structural and technological factors, he said. The U.S. is in the midst of adjusting to globalization, which, as most investors know, has resulted in the transfer of millions of good-paying U.S. jobs overseas to lower-cost centers. "The U.S. has also gained some jobs from globalization, but the net is still a major loss of good-paying jobs in the United States," Dawson said. "Some economists argue that's at the root of declining consumption. We are net-negative in the good-paying jobs category, so far, in globalization, and there simply aren't enough citizens with incomes adequate to buy the products."

Over the long holiday weekend, I had a chance to do some much needed reading. Given my vocation, sometimes I like to read articles that have little to do with the markets or finance as a way of recharging my batteries.

Of course, even when I partake in this guilty pleasure, there really is no way to truly escape. Somehow every story has a link or relationship to investing that I can utilize in my stock-picking mission.

This weekend, it was an article critical of a Shape magazine cover featuring a bikini-clad Faith Hill that has import for individual investors. In this particular article, the author does a really great job of highlighting the battle of fitness versus self-image.

How exactly did the 41-year-old country singer get that body? Was it photoshopped? How about plastic surgery? Is it really fair to present her in that way without the caveats, if any? The image alone implies that this woman, a busy professional with young children, managed to eat right and exercise in a way that created the image you now see on the magazine -- and that you can achieve yourself.

Wow, what pressure. The problem, of course, is that Photoshop was probably used in this instance, and if not Photoshop, then plastic surgery for certain.

So what does this have to do with investing?

This morning I awoke to the news that Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) announced a definitive agreement to purchase Mentor (NYSE: MNT), a leading supplier of medical products for the global aesthetic market -- namely, breast implants.

JNJ is paying $31 per share, or $1.07 billion in cash, for the company. The purchase price is about double what MNT fetched in the open market on Friday.

A premium price of that magnitude in this market environment is hard to believe, but I would not bet against JNJ here. They have their pulse on the market and a copy of Shape magazine on their desk. As the baby-boomer generation ages, plastic surgery looks to be a huge market. Fueled by images like those in Shape magazine, the market is more than worthy of a premium price.

The fact that MNT was valued at the purchase price as recently as June is telling. Yes, the economy is in recession, but the desire to improve self image is alive and well.

This is a brilliant deal for JNJ. The company enters a strong market with great demographics at a time of economic weakness. Taking advantage of a strong balance sheet and rich cash flow, JNJ is a winner in this economy.

Self-image issues aside, I like this deal.

Jamie Dlugosch is a contributor to InvestorPlace.com.

This post is one in a series on prominent company nicknames. See all 25, and share your thoughts and memories about the Peacock Network below in the comments.

Perhaps more visually recognizable than any other television symbol today, NBC's colorful peacock logo and nickname encompass far more depth and history than simply having been a tool of recognition for NBC Television, subsidiary of General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE). Beyond simply identifying network programs in the age when NBC and CBS began applying the color palette to broadcast television, NBC's peacock was charged with the awesome task of informing and convincing the parents of the baby boomer generation that color television had arrived, it was good, and they wanted it. The peacock was assigned the monumental task of engaging the public. Indeed, it has performed that job to perfection.

I grew up fully addicted to television, and NBC's peacock long heralded the appearance of many of my favorite shows. Bonanza, NBC's first serious success in color broadcast television, was a weekly treat for me, as it was for millions of other enchanted TV viewers. Accordingly, by the time color television promotion had begun to move consumers to purchase the new color television sets, which sold for approximately $1,000 initially, the NBC peacock, which had begun its glorious life as a simple static image, learned how to fan its tail feathers in a motion indicative of the sweeping changes the television age would come to initiate.

Until man orbited the earth, television was perhaps the single greatest technological achievement since Henry Ford had put automobiles into mass production. Since the coming of color television in 1956, the NBC peacock has been a television communications fixture, and NBC television is respectfully referred to as "The Peacock Network" by people and publications throughout the industry. It can be said that very few other company logos have stood as representative for changes that have affected so many people, so very deeply, for such a long time.

Baby Boomers, in some cases already facing the 'double demands' of caring for kids and aging parents, have another economic concern, at least for the next phase of the housing cycle: substantially lower household net worth, as a result of declining home prices, so says a Washington-based think tank.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research says the median households head by those ages 45-54 in 2009 will have about 25% less wealth than the similar demographic in 2004. In dollars, household wealth will decline to $113,268 from $150,113.

Further, the above assume March 2008's housing prices hold for 2009: if they don't and prices fall another 10%, household net worth declines by about 35%; 20%, by about 45%, the CEPR said.

Economist Peter Dawson, who is not affiliated with the CEPR or the study, told BloggingStocks part of the problem was "unreasonable expectations regarding home appreciation rates, the belief that 10-15% real estate gains would continue for decades. It got too many adults out of the traditional saving and investing mode and into thinking their home would serve as a major return on investment." Most homes do appreciate, and they can help build wealth, Dawson said, but homeowners must think in terms of a 6-9% average, annual appreciation rate, "which is a more-realistic return for residential dwellings."

No doubt, small businesses are a powerful force in the U.S. economy in terms of job creation and innovation. And, according to a recent study from the Kauffman Foundation, it looks like things are still going strong, despite the slowing economy. For example, every month, about 500,000 new businesses are started (of course, there are certainly a good number that fail as well).

So, what are some of the key trends? Well, interestingly enough, there is quite a bit of growth from immigrants. In fact, they are more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans.

Something else: men are twice as likely to start a business then women. Actually, I think this is unfortunate because diversity certainly allows for stronger growth.

However, looking at the next decade or so, I suspect we'll see much more entrepreneurial activity. Why? It's when the Baby Boomers will reach their prime years for new business formation. They will have the wisdom and resources to take a flier. What's more, a new business may actually became an interesting way for Baby Boomers to essentially change the definition of "retirement" -- that is, leaving the rat race and doing what they really want.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook (www.mergerbook.com) and is also a principal in Averiware, which provides an ERP system to small and mid-size businesses.

With a sluggish economy, uncertain job growth, the most serious housing recession in more than 20 years, record oil and gasoline prices, ramping food costs, and a foreign policy landscape that's challenging (to say the least), decision makers in the United States, public and private, have more than enough to be concerned about, near-term, most analysts and citizens would agree.

Still, the above wasn't enough to prevent the annual "alarm sounding" about long-term concerns, such as Social Security and Medicare, the likes of which occurred again this week when the Social Security Trustees released their revised 2008 actuarial balance, which is a status report.

Moreover, while it's never prudent to ignore the tax and benefits implications of entitlement programs as large as Social Security and Medicare, it's important that investors and taxpayers also keep in mind one undeniable reality pertaining to statistical analysis of this sort. Namely, that we're dealing with longitudinal projections stretching out decades in which -- if any one of 20 variables (or more) change -- receipts and outlays would change substantially.

American consumers, the pivotal factor in the consumer-dependent U.S. economy, may have modified their spending philosophy, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Stung by the housing market correction, stagnant wage growth in certain job segments, above-average debt levels, and a slowing economy, Americans are saving more and using credit less -- a shift that some analysts argue is a cultural inflection point of sorts, with huge implications for the economy.

Economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Tuesday that while The Times' interpretative report did not "cite a large enough sample size to meet my fancy," it nonetheless provided data points that support what macroeconomic indicators are saying about consumer choices.

"We know that the savings rate has increased in the last six months, and retail sales are sluggish, at best. Take these and combine them with much tighter credit terms for home equity loans and other credit and what you get is a pull back in purchases, particularly purchases on credit," Affinito said.

With treasury yields well below 4%, and even decent corporate paper not yielding much better, the question I keep hearing from my elderly clients who live off of their investment income is where are they going to get the income needed to meet their expenses. Thrown into the mix that, in four years million and millions of baby boomers are set to retire, so they will also need to start adjusting their portfolios to be more income oriented. I anticipate that we will see continued demand for high-rated bonds and, as such, I can't imagine that we will see yields back above 6% on good corporates.

What to do? The answer to that question is more involved than this space permits, but take a look at preferred stock to help supplement income. My buddy, Zack Miller had a nice post about this a while back. The problem with preferred stocks is that it's hard to get information on each issue and the terms of the issue. Also, liquidity can be an issue. That's why I like the POWERSHARES ETF TRUST (AMEX: PGF). The ETF is well diversified as it holds about 28 issues. More important is that it is yielding a shade under 7%. With preferreds having been slammed over the last few months, there may be some opportunity for some capital gains as well.

Living off fixed income? Check out preferred stocks.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer has a position and is long PGF. He has no positions in any stock mentioned as of 1/27/08

In a choppy/consolidating (or perhaps worse) market, discretion dictates that one look for companies where the demographics are running in the company's favor. Health care services in the United States is one sector, and in this category Hologic is worth an evaluation.

Hologic (NASDAQ: HOLX) manufactures mammography tests/products, workstations, and detection systems, as well as cervical cancer screening systems, among other health care service business lines.

Analysts see solid-to-robust growth for HOLX on favorable demographic trends and increased health education awareness to undergo regular, as-required tests for the conditions HOLX screens. Margins remain solid in both the breast cancer and cervical cancer detection areas, with promising opportunities to increase market share. The Reuters F2007/F2008 EPS consensus estimates for HOLX are $1.69/$2.25.

The risks: Negative changes to Medicare and/or private insurer reimbursement rates would hurt HOLX's results, if clinics consequently reduce tests with machines/devices manufactured by HOLX. Analysts also are monitoring intensifying competition across HOLX's revenue streams.

The First Call mean rating for HOLX is: Buy. [13 firms.] Mean 2008 target: $73.00. [high: $77, low: $65.]

Stock Analysis: Hologic is a moderate-risk stock not suitable for low-risk investors. Investors with an investment horizon longer than two years should be rewarded from HOLX's shares. Sell / Stop Loss if you were to purchase shares in this company: $42.

DISCLOSURE: Joseph Lazzaro has no positions in stocks. In addition to private real estate holdings, he owns corporate and municipal bonds, and cash certificates of deposit.

Now is definitely not the time to think about retail sector investments. Soaring oil and gasoline prices, uncertainty regarding the size of the subprime mortgage default problem, and concerns about a slowing U.S. economy don't exactly flash the "SPEND" signal for consumers this holiday season.

Even so, Nordstrom Inc. (NYSE: JWN) may buck the trend, or perform well despite the headwinds, to use a Wall Street phrase.

The case for buying Nordstrom rests on the company's increasing market share, solid balance sheet and cash flow, all driven by the Nordstrom brand. Over the last decade, Nordstrom has established itself at the leading upscale department store. Most retailers would love to have Nordstrom's combination of brand reputation, Baby Boomer appeal, and consistent shopping experience across store departments.

USA Today reports that at age 62, America's first baby boomer opted into Social Security today. The question for America is whether the 80 million people born between 1946 and 1964 will bankrupt Social Security by the time all of them are receiving their payments.

The caseload for so-called entitlements -- Social Security and Medicare -- is going to explode in the next 23 years. By 2030, Social Security's caseload will be 84 million people, up from 50 million today. Medicare will go from 44 million beneficiaries to 79 million. That will leave about two workers paying payroll taxes for every retiree. The tab is estimated at $50 trillion in future obligations over the next 75 years. Social Security will rise from 4% to 6% of the GDP, and Medicare will go from 3% to 11%.

The options are not good. Fixing Social Security solely with higher taxes or cuts in spending would mean a 16% increase in the payroll tax or a 13% cut in benefits. Medicare's needs would be far greater: a 122% payroll tax hike or a 51% reduction in spending, just for hospital care. Unfortunately, the longer we wait to fix the problem, the more it will cost.

However, if history is any guide, we'll wait until a crisis before we find the will to act. And that crisis will fall on the shoulders of the baby boomers' children and grandchildren -- not much of a legacy.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Yesterday I posted Chasing Value: Harley-Davidson (HOG) looking on down the road and actually bought a few shares. Late in the day I received a comment from one of our frequent readers whose opinions I have grown to respect, although he can be a little harsh at times. This reader raised some interesting points I thought worth some consideration. He wrote:

• "I don't like the stock. I see it as a luxury item for aging Baby Boomers. The ones who always wanted one, (or who) already own one. The younger generations aren't interested. I also think you're making a classic mistake when you speculate by saying "if it returns to its former level within the next few years."

He is correct that there is no assurance a stock will return to past glory. It is entirely possible that a company may fade away, just like Levi Strauss did when competitors stormed its castle from all sides with cheaper products, fancier products, variations on a theme and jeans made by other strong brands that extended their product lines into Levi's historic stronghold.

Similar things are happening now to Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) as Honda Motors, Yamaha, Kowasaki and Suzuki take on "style and look" of the classic American "HOG" ride. They do it cheaper, with less effort and even borrow American icons like eagles and flags to promote their machines. They also offer a smoother ride in many cases, as Harley clings to the past and continues producing motorcycles with what it calls "edgy" (read "rough") rides. It is also true that younger motorcycle enthusiasts do not appreciate the Harley mystique in the same way as Baby Boomers have.

Last week I reported on a new study suggesting that around a third of baby boomers don't have enough in savings to maintain their current standard of living in retirement. While I certainly think people need to save more money, I wasn't panicking yet. I wrote that, "Rather than seeking Florida retirement communities and golf courses, the senior citizens of the future may work longer, often on projects that have a social element. Remember, this is the group of people that brought us Woodstock and the Vietnam War protests -- I don't see them sitting by the beach."

MarketWatch's Marshall Loeb has a good piece on this very same issue. He starts with a nice quote from Jack Welch: "People don't want to sit on the beach just because they've hit 70. They're too vibrant. They want action: 70 is the new 55."

Loeb writes that "The appeal of early retirement is fading, and more and more folks are willing -- even eager -- to work beyond some mythic date. A record 24.6 million Americans age 55 and above are on the job."

Age discrimination is on the decline and so are "mandatory retirement ages" for certain companies and occupations.

This is great news for everyone: Older workers have a lot to teach younger workers, and working, at least part-time, late into life will likely slow mental deterioration (just like playing bridge does).

So let's not weep too much for the baby boomers. Many may not have enough to retire at 65, but that could work out just fine for them -- and society at large.

Here's a shocker: baby boomers don't have enough money for retirement. An Associated Press piece reports that "Nearly one-third of baby boomers ages 51 to 61 are at risk of not having enough in savings to finance a comfortable retirement, according to a study being released Tuesday by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College."

This piece seems like the most believable of the recent studies on this topic that have come out. One actually suggested that people were saving too much, which reminded me of an old newspaper clipping I saw on the 'Headlines' segment of Jay Leno's Tonight Show: "Newspapers look for ways to deliver mail more slowly." I don't really see how anyone can argue that Americans are saving too much money. Pick up a copy of Maxed Out if you need convincing. Why would people who are saving too much money have so much debt?

The saving grace here may be that baby boomers are likely to retire in a way that is dramatically different from the way their parents did. Rather than seeking Florida retirement communities and golf courses, the senior citizens of the future may work longer, often on projects that have a social element -- Remember, this is the group of people that brought us Woodstock and the Vietnam War protests: I don't see them sitting by the beach.

My hunch is that medical advances will allow older people to be more active longer, and that we won't end up with too much of a retirement crisis.

This was an odd morning. I am not sure if the weird factor was that a senior care company was finally being acquired or that there was no real premium to the deal. The Carlyle Group is acquiring Manor Care (NYSE:HCR) in a $4.9 billion acquisition, or $6.3 billion if you include the debt assumption.

Shareholders will receive $67 per share, assuming shareholders approve it. "No-Premium" deals are harder for new shareholders to stomach, but older shareholders will be able to cash out since the stock jumped roughly 20% back in April after word of a deal had come to light when the company announced it was exploring strategic alternatives.

Manor Care employs almost 60,000 people and operates more than 500 facilities in nursing and rehabilitation centers, assisted living facilities, outpatient rehabilitation clinics, and hospice and home care agencies. If you consider the looming retirement of the baby boomers, all of these facilities offer a considerable value.

It sure seems like the price of poker, or bingo in this case, just went up. You expect more consolidation in a cottage industry that is about to become a secular group.

Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.