America’s elites are exploiting working-class women to produce the next upper echelon

By ANJALI IYER — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

In 2023, Rebecca Smith (a pseudonym) agreed to become a surrogate for Silicon Valley venture capitalist Cindy Bi. Once Smith signed the contract, she was promptly impregnated with a male embryo and saddled with binding legal ties to Bi and her husband. Despite the fact that Bi had budgeted over $200,000 for the birth of two embryos, Smith was compensated with $45,000 to put her body, profession and life at risk.

The pregnancy began relatively smoothly, as Bi took it upon herself to micromanage every aspect of Smith’s lifestyle. Bi went so far as to allegedly share Smith’s health records on an anonymous Facebook account in an abhorrent violation of Smith’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights. Suddenly, at the 29-week-mark, Smith began experiencing abnormal bleeding and nearly died from a hemorrhage. As she fought for her life in a hospital bed, Bi’s only priority was to coerce her into signing yet another contract.

Unfortunately, the baby was stillborn. Bi and her husband were understandably devastated, but Bi’s sadness quickly turned to anger. She attacked Smith on social media, blaming her for the baby’s death, claiming it was “1,000 percent preventable.” She refused to pay Smith, doxxed her online and even went so far as to attempt to put her in jail by smothering her with a barrage of legal charges. In a chilling quote, Bi describes how she felt compelled to respond to the death of her baby with every form of revenge possible to prevent looking weak to investment founders, instead of taking the time to prioritize her healing from this tragedy.

As surrogacy has become an increasingly common method for having children, it’s moved to the forefront of a contentious cultural discussion. Personally, I take no issue with a mutually beneficial decision between consenting adults. Surrogacy is a great option for couples who are unable or are unwilling to have biological children through typical reproductive means. Often, the surrogate is someone they know, such as a sibling or close friend. However, in many cases, a surrogate is found through an agency that matches couples with women willing to birth children for monetary compensation.

As reflected in the Smith and Bi case, stranger surrogacy can lead to mismatched expectations and a dangerous power imbalance. Bi’s willingness to weaponise her wealth to exact revenge and sacrifice Smith in the process is indicative of her attitude towards the woman she used to birth her children. In recent years, billionaires and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have become enamoured with surrogacy in a bizarre attempt to circumvent the declining birthrate and produce genetically designed superbabies. Notorious pronatalist Elon Musk has conceived numerous children through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy. He intends to produce as many “elite” children as possible by taking advantage of his role as the chief executive officer of X to scour the site for potential mothers. To ensure his success, Musk also coerces his female employees into having his children, allegedly using his position of power to financially reward and punish his surrogates as he so chooses.

This rising trend reveals a more troubling insight into the minds of a class so removed from society that they feel entitled to the bodies of anyone less wealthy, whose lives are seen as expendable. The way in which these billionaires exploit their surrogates seems reflective of the business practices that brought them to the top — using money and power to control both their subordinates and financial outcomes.

This pattern is also reflected in the surrogate project run by billionaire Greg Lindberg, whose methods include finding women with Aryan traits and coercing them into donating their eggs without disclosing his eugenicist intentions — he has dubbed this venture his “baby project.” In one case, he pressured his girlfriend Anya (a pseudonym) into donating over 20 eggs to impregnate a surrogate mother, for which she was provided with $1.5 million to waive her parental rights. In hopes of creating up to 50 “elite” Aryan children, Lindberg has built a network of contractually obligated women to donate eggs and birth his children in furtherance of his deluded cause. 

Bi, Musk and Lindberg’s obsession with surrogacy highlights the growing divide between the ultra-wealthy and a weakening middle class. These business moguls embark on relentless pursuits to ensnare willing surrogates that they can use as disposable wombs, only to abandon them the minute they consider the fetus “imperfect.” Or, more insidiously, they attack their surrogates with litigation to drain their resources. More often than not, billionaires’ search for surrogates is nothing more than a self-aggrandising quest to produce what they consider to be “superior” children.

Billionaires are often plagued by an obsession with perfection and a compulsion to achieve “greater goals:” no matter the cost. But, when you have the means to solve every problem with money, tensions arise in situations where money cannot account for every variable. Pregnancy is an organic process with so many possibilities and risks; while having access to wealth decreases the maternal and infant mortality rate, no amount of money can prevent unforeseen emergencies. Perhaps it’s time that Silicon Valley billionaires understand that wealth has no power over nature.

Written by: Anjali Iyer — amiyer@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

As Gen Z heads to trade schools, it’s time to talk about how we view college education

By SABRINA FIGUEROA — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu

At the end of high school, my peers and I were constantly swarmed with questions about our plans after graduation. Many were heading off to a traditional college or university, but a few opted for trade schools instead. 

Although university is still the dominant choice, it seems as though the trade route is gaining more traction, especially amongst members of Gen Z. This has been credited (at least in part) to increasingly high costs of university tuition, which has “more than doubled in the 21st century,” according to The Education Data Initiative. In just one academic year, “the average in-state student attending a public four-year institution and living on-campus spends $27,146” — simply not an attainable metric for many people.

In comparison, trade schools (depending on the program type and location) cost, on average, cost roughly $3,800 to $16,000 total. Not only are these programs often cheaper, they’re shorter — some can be completed in less than a year. And, due to federal initiatives like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, certain industries that require trade school training are experiencing a job boom; yet, there’s a lack of skilled workers fit for the open roles. This high demand and low supply situation makes trades especially appealing for recent high school graduates — they allow you to make money faster than attending college does.

As the cost of living continues to rise, our survival is increasingly based on our abilities to financially sustain ourselves and, for some, our whole families. If you can make that essential income more immediately by going to trade school, why would you consider getting a college education in the first place? Why struggle with finding a job after attending a four-year university when you can directly enter a market in demand of labor?

What we have forgotten is the beauty of education as a form of liberation; it helps us learn critical thinking skills necessary for solving real-world problems and systemic issues, for knowing when we are being deceived by people in power and for progressing into the future rather than regressing and repeating history.

Beyond what you learn in lecture halls, you’re able to become part of a community; interacting with people from different walks of life that have plenty to teach you and vice versa. The value of higher education is far greater than the sum of its parts; more than just a path to a career, college and university impart crucial life skills and experience on their students.

By no means is this to suggest we should stay away from trade schools, which are still great opportunities that people should take advantage of to pull through in this society. The problem lies with how we’ve begun to treat college or university as nothing more than a means to an end — a replacement for job training, the first step in an inevitable chain of events that lead to a career — and nothing else.

This mentality creates room for anti-intellectualism; “why do you study [insert any poorly perceived major] if it won’t make you money?” can turn into “college is a scam” very quickly. Hearing “what are you going to do with that?” after sharing your major as a social science or humanities student is not only annoying, but a consequence of how we as a society have begun to devalue education. When we fail to recognize that the privilege of knowledge and learning is useful beyond our need to accrue wealth, it’s easy to say going to college is a waste of time. 

 We assess the value of any given experience on a monetary basis — a consequence of capitalism — but this is ineffective, deceptive and problematic when we apply it to education. Failing to appreciate the value of higher education only keeps us going in circles where we continue to fall in line in a system that puts profit over humans. 

We should be able to study something simply because we find it interesting or amusing — without feeling like we’re wasting our time and our money. The value of a collegiate education extends far beyond the career opportunities it can provide. Although it’s not the world we live in today, we can strive for it in the future with more accessible tuition rates, the elimination of barriers that dissuade students from attending university and a greater focus on pursuing higher education overall.

Written by: Sabrina Figueroa — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Unions play an important role in securing worker protections

By SAGE KAMOCSAY— skamocsay@ucdavis.edu

Union participation in America is at an all-time low. As working conditions worsen and average pay lowers compared to the cost of living, this decline in union membership is especially concerning. Workers are increasingly left without necessary protections — a reality that could be avoided if we reincorporate unions into common practice.

Workers should understand that their employers are materially interested in paying as little as possible for as much labor as they can get. A worker cannot obtain truly livable conditions and wages through the trust of their employer or the ballot box alone; those provisions, unfortunately but realistically, must be fought for and won in opposition to employers.

This is what unions do: They bring together the common people and provide them an avenue through which to fight for good working conditions. They harness the power of the masses to compel high-up businessmen to listen to their demands. If enough workers want to change a policy, unions can force employers to make that change via the passion of their members. In theory, this goal can be achieved through more civil means, like private discussions between union representatives and company heads. But the real power of the union lies in what they can do if companies refuse to listen.

Strikes are a common example of this power. Union members will refuse to work until their demands are met, targeting a company’s bottom line. Profits decrease, stock prices fall, and C-suite staff salaries are threatened. When lower-level employees don’t work, they don’t produce value for the company. Even with replacement workers, employers often struggle to outlast a prolonged strike. It’s a war of attrition — the winner will be whoever can afford to continue the strike. However, unions typically pick fights they know they can win — and it is far less costly to organize a strike than to endure one. Companies thus often lose this game of tug-of-war, and in many cases, ultimately meet union demands rather than risk long-term financial damage. 

Strikes can also help to raise public awareness for a cause. Demonstrations allow non-workers to see the plight of the strikers and can drastically bolster the effects of strikers’ efforts, putting further social and monetary pressure on company owners to improve working conditions.

Unions can also facilitate change through the judicial system. Large unions often have lawyers who can bring lawsuits against their companies and the government to the courtroom in order to secure restitution and empirical institutional improvements.

But what are these conditions, exactly? What do unions seek to protect through strikes and litigation? Wages are one example — with the minimum wage currently below what’s realistic for living, unions can incentivize companies to pay their workers fairly. Unions can also help employees secure better job benefits, shorter hours and safer facilities, all of which help to give them better and more fulfilling lives while making sure they are properly compensated. Any union worth its salt is also a democratic process; the issues that workers are most upset about are the ones that will be bargained for by the union representatives. Unions are designed to help workers in real, tangible ways.

With all this being said, unions are facing increasing attacks from the government. Federal workers are being stripped of their right to organize; the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been hijacked by the Trump administration to represent the wishes of employers and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps to mediate labor disputes, has laid off 95% of its workforce; an action that will cause mediation to grind to a halt, leaving labor disputes unsolved. 

The effectiveness of unions in protecting their hard-working members is in jeopardy. While now may not be the easiest time to join a union, it certainly remains important to do so. Even if you can’t join one yourself, go out and support workers on the picket line. With the support of the masses, unions can stay safe and powerful — which is exactly what we as a society need.

Written by: Sage Kamocsay— skamocsay@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

Heirlooms of flavor and family

By NEVAEH KARRAKER — nakarraker@ucdavis.edu

I had the privilege of growing up in an “ingredient household.” As a chef, my dad constantly filled the house with the aromas of new concoctions and rows of potions wafting over the countertops. 

To others, “candy meat” is a weird conjunction of words. Yet to my family and I, it’s a delicious traditional dish of pork shoulder coated in a mouth-watering brown sugar rub. It’s born from a kitchen crowded with siblings sneaking bites and parents taking the time to teach us the proper ways to use a knife, all while music blasts in the background.

There’s no tangible recipe for this dish. It’s rather a culmination of dozens of tests, several cookbooks and the finesse of experience. It’s derived from an intimate familiarity with earth’s provision of whole foods, not from the soulless assembly lines inside of factories.

In the United States, the wide accessibility of convenient fast food — making up 60% of the total caloric intake — has unfortunately caused the loss of culture passed down through food. After all, stereotypical “American food” is mass-produced burgers, french fries and frozen dinners.

Recipes physically passed down through crumpled pieces of paper or via verbal instructions are as authentic as pleating dumplings with technique, love and connection. It’s a palpable transference of history and passion. What’s more, the gesture of making food with our own hands — the zesting of the orange, the kneading of the dough — is more than culture: It’s a tradition of servitude. 

Yet today, the servitude and invaluable heritage that used to define our society has fizzled out. Grocery stores have exploited healthy ingredients by controlling the influx of microwave meals, challenging our discipline in turn: How much time and effort is our health and wellbeing worth? 

Post-World War II, the evolution of industrial kitchens transgressed into automation. The commercialization of air fryers, microwaves or similar appliances has replaced the authentic expertise of humans. Our reliance on these machines has diminished our skills, softened our hands, degenerated our cultures and robbed future generations of inheriting that priceless knowledge.

Junk food corrupts our bodies and minds into lazier, more lousy versions of ourselves. Further, society harbors a selfish mindset; a “what can I get out of this” in lieu of “what can I give?” We prefer the overconsumption of popular items to a home-cooked meal and quality time if it means less work for us.

The kitchen is a center of unity. Our past, language and ethnicity is irrelevant when it comes to enjoying a meal together; the sensation of flavors and a grateful smile is all we need. In a way, food sustains the memories that we make with people and allows us to savor special moments in ways we’d never be able to otherwise. Each clang of pots and pans, each tear shed from an onion and every recipe shared is an act of preservation. 

Hence, the table where a meal is shared is a physical representation of fellowship, provision and sustenance. It’s built by the strength of family, the service of grace and the secrets of the obscure elements that form it.

This Thanksgiving, I encourage you to purposefully spend time not only at the table, but in the kitchen with your family. There’s something so satisfying and enriching about repeating the same techniques as our elders did, transforming mundane ingredients into unforgettable meals and serving others the food we worked hard to make. Inherit that knowledge, and with it, an indispensable heritage.

If you’re unsure about your own traditions, then let this be an inspiration to create some. Be an advocate to prevent the novelty of food (and in turn, culture) from dissipating. In time, I hope to construct a kitchen like my dad has; one filled with the aroma of creativity, care and love.

Written by: Nevaeh Karraker — nakarraker@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.