In this article there were many things discussed about divorce. There is a lot of research and there are a lot of people reading the research to "create" facts. There is a relationship between low income and divorce but it is unclear which comes first. The part of the article I found interesting was that couples were more likely to get divorced if their first born was a girl. The other thing that I found alarming was that non traditional families cost the American people "$112 billion per year, or $1 trillion each decade" in taxes. That is money coming out our pockets. This statistic really surprised me. There are tax benefits to getting married and there aren't benefits to getting divorced. As I continued to read this article I realized that we all need to be careful of the facts we are believing, and the evidence that are supporting the conclusions. This article did a good job of explaining both sides in the end.
Forget recession, bring on the depression, and make it a great one! I think there is a disconnect between the generation of Americans that made this one of the most influential in modern history and those that drive contemporary, mainstream opinion. Widespread diffusion of responsibly, spill over of the great society, and instant everything have changed the makeup of America’s character and I find it to be tragic. The greatest generation of Americans was born from one of the worst economic periods of our history, considering current sentiment, I welcome the forecasted economic downturn.
HELP HELP, the food costs are rising!! It’s ok though, because wages are also rising to offset… no wait, oh crap, only food and fuel costs are rising, everything else is unresponsive! Good thing these facts are kept under control with our exceptional MBA degrees that will undoubtedly land us successful high paying jobs no matter what the economy has to say about it right, right.This little peach of an informative helps shed some light on our current inflationary saga. Interestingly enough the article begins by stating that the even Wal8Mart’s “Always Low Prices” aren’t so low these days and that around the world we are seeing food-related riots. That’s right, I am not just talking about the common food fight, these bad boys are riots! “Nearly every food staple has seen a double-digit percentage increase over the past year, including a 38% hike for a dozen eggs, to $2.16, and a 19% jump, to $1.78, for a loaf of white bread, according to American Farm Bureau data.” Basically the average American has turned into a coupon hunter. I don’t know about you, but it looks and is starting to feel like we have been thrown into a painful circle of, dare I say it, recession-linked inflation. Unfortunately for the consumer, all of the goods that are seeing price increases are staples, with little if any elasticity and discretionary spending. We need food, we need gas. Apparently we also need a big fat kick in the pants, or at least our pocketbook
Given Microsoft's market power; it only makes good business sense for the company to make this move. As current user's PC's age and they shop for a new replacement, they will have little choice but to buy a new PC with the more costly Vista OS. Microsoft is only doing what any business with market power would do. I say, let them go for it.
Everywhere I look businesses are worried sick about the thought of a recession. Every industry is looking for ways to either cut costs or increase profit margins. Every industry is panicking except one, movies. The first thought that ran through my head when I saw the title of this article was what a bad time for producers to release such a great movie like Indiana Jones. But upon reading the first sentence of the article, I discovered this is actually the best time for great movies. Dating back to the depression people with lower incomes have skimped and saved to visit the theater just to catch a glimpse of their favorite inspirational heroes and heroines. Movies are an inferior good. When people have less income they see more movies. Who would have thought? When money is tight Indiana Jones will come to an encouraging rescue.
If you love to eat King Salmon you probably won't be eating it for awhile. King Salmon populations in Oregon and California have dropped from 775,000 in 2002 to 90,000 in 2007 and the number is expected to drop to 59,000 this year. This is prompting fish and wildlife experts to ban the harvesting of King Salmon for an undetermined amount of time starting in May. Fisherman are not opposing this action and generally support it to allow salmon populations to replenish themselves. Scientists do not know exactly why this is happening but believe it has been caused by cyclical changes in the oceans environment. Because of short term temperature changes the food supply for juvenile salmon swimming to the ocean for the first time in 2005 was significantly decreased possibly causing the salmon population to decrease. Salmon disappearing. So what does this have to do with economics? If you like to eat seafood this problem is going to make your meal more expensive even though King Salmon won't be on the menu. Fishermen will need to make up income somewhere and the most likely thing for them to do is raise the price of the other seafood they catch. With the decrease in supply for King Salmon the demand for other types of salmon will increase and make them more expensive. Don't be shocked the next time you head to a seafood restaurant and your bill is more than you expected. The question that will remain unanswered is how long will this ban on King Salmon be in effect and what will this do to seafood restaurants during this ban?
I was watching a special polygamy Oprah a few weeks ago, and as always my full attention was captivated by Oprah as she interviewed a young mother who escaped life in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community. Living so close to Colorado City, Arizona I believe the economics of the issue are very pertinent to Utah citizens. The woman being interviewed had many children. Her eldest daughter was turning 14 years old when she decided to leave the fundamentalist community in the middle of the night. She refused to let her daughter be married at such a young age, so she took her many children and started a new life.
In this article another underage girl became pregnant at the age of 15. Police raided a Fundamentalist compound but found no young girl. The Fundamentalists have only begun constructing these compounds to keep away outsiders. The woman interviewed on Oprah supported the legalization of plural marriage in attempts of reducing the religion’s secrecy. Authorities could more easily investigate underage marriage and save more girls like herself because polygamists would be less inclined to secrecy if polygamy was legal.
Would legalizing plural marriage decrease underage marriage in the Fundamentalist community? My answer is no. First of all secrecy is how the community survives. The church members are not allowed to view television, read the paper, and some days leave the “compound.” The religion is all people know and the fear of the unknown keeps people in it. Secondly, reducing the punishment for plural marriage would not reduce the demand for the religion to be secretive because the religion survives on this secrecy. The third reason is police more aggressively prosecute underage marriage rather than plural marriage. This still makes secrecy a priority.
There are many economic factors in deciding how vulnerable a city might be against a terrorist attack. Boise, the same Boise located in the state of Idaho, was the only western city to be ranked in the top ten most vulnerable cities in the United States. The cities people might perceive as more probable targets like Los Angeles and San Francisco are ranked 41 and 66 respectively. Why so low and why lower that Boise? The research is based on socioeconomics, infrastructure, and geophysical hazards. Boise is a risky city because it is located near the Lucky Peak Reservoir. This creates an opportunity for potentially flooding the city. These issues are weighted to determine how terrorists could potentially hurt the most people with the least amount of action. Essentially the report defines the opportunity costs for terrorists looking to destroy American lives.
Dr. Tutfe has explained this week the power of a monopsony or single buyer. One example he cited was teachers of secondary education in the United States. These teachers staunchly advocate for the government but do not realize that the government is the main source of their compensation. Privatizing education would actually help teachers be compensated more fairly because it would reduce the power this single buyer has in the market. Which is why I was surprised to read this article in Business Week, that stated the majority of doctors are now in favor of a single government-sponsored medical insurance. I can see only two logical reasons for their rising support. The first would be the doctor’s ethical responsibility to help low-income people in this country get the proper health care. The second is more self-interested. Many people now just do not visit the doctor because it is too expensive; however, with the government-sponsored insurance more people will be more inclined to see the doctor. With increased patients doctor’s offices are able to earn more despite the projected lower earnings resulting from a national insurance.
Verizon Wireless recently commenced its $99 unlimited calling plan and competitors of course quickly followed suit. Is this really smart? Cell phone companies have typically sold minutes in “buckets” of time, packaging deals to get the most surplus out of customers. By creating plans with unlimited minutes, wireless providers “could lose 25% to 40% of the revenue from some of their most lucrative customers.” I'm not sure how lowering the price like this could be good for the industry, except to get people away from landlines.
You can look at this conflict from two standpoints: a consumer or a producer. The consumer standpoint, as we all know, is extreme frustration over volatile gas prices and reported "big profits" for the oil industry at our expense. The last thing we want to hear after paying $3.29 per gallon at the pump is anything to do with increasing profits for oil producers.
As consumers, we know the complaints and frustrations of the American people; however, how much have we considered the oil industry as a business rather than the enemy. If you remove yourself from your consumer shoes and put on the hat of an executive in the oil industry, you'd be singing a different tune. Don't get me wrong--I am just as frustrated as the next person over the extremely volatile gas prices; however, as a business student I also recognize the reasoning behind some of the strategies practiced by businesses in order to grow and survive long term.
In the article, J.S. Simon made some "valid" points regarding the high profits of the oil industry. He pointed out that you have to put the profits in perspective relative to the investment requirements for the industry as well as the need for sustainability over down cycles that are likely to follow the market upswings.
As a business owner, what would you do? You are dealing with a potentially limited natural resource requiring a huge capital investment in order to distribute. There has to be some middle ground here: I understand that a business must be profitable in order to justify staying in business; however, does this justify virtual "rape" of the American economy?????
Is it just me or does it seem like our government focuses way too much on cigarettes. It may be because at one time in history they freely gave them out to all the military or maybe there are stronger groups pretesting against it. I am not quite sure, but it seems to me that there are a lot more harmful things then this that seem to get no regulation.
Economically we have talked about how regulation for anything ends up hurting the economy more. Instead of banning certain cigarettes I think they should allow them and possibly just tax them more heavily and use that money to help our school systems that seem to be lacking funds. I think banning would not solve the problem, in fact I think it could be even worse. Maybe I am just a biased business student, but I don’t think that regulation is the answer in this case.
With this new reform, we can expect to see the supply curve shift to the right, causing prices to decline.
This article does raise an important point regarding the rising cost of food particularly. It mentions an increased price of Irish soda bread in New York by 50% over the past year, while forgetting to point out the effects of the weakened dollar relative to the euro. Certainly, there are serious questions concerning the future health of our economy, but our news media does not benefit anyone with knee-jerk responses to matters they seem to know very little about.
Professor Tufte mentioned today that, after controlling for other factors, teacher salaries are higher when private schools are located close by. It seems that the teacher representation monopoly held by unions may be in danger and the prospect of lower economic profits may be somewhere over the horizon. So let’s all pick up the cause for school choice, considering that teachers benefit from higher wages and smaller bureaucracies, and students are better off by higher levels of completion. After all, Milton Friedman’s Choir already has provided an anthem.
Gas prices are up again, but no matter how high the price of gasoline rises, people will still buy. It is estimated that it would take an 81-cent-per-gallon increase in the price of gasoline for consumption to decrease 6.5 percent. One theory circulating to lower gasoline consumption is car insurance. Insurance companies charge flat rates to customers with similar risks. One risk that is not accounted for is miles driven. It makes sense that the more a car is on the road the more likely a car will be in an accident, so people who drive more should have to pay more for their insurance. This benefits the insurance company by earning more premiums from those riskier clients. At the same time gas prices and consumption are kept are kept at a lower level. It could all be made possible with insurance.
It seems like this idea would result in nothing but positives for example: less traffic accidents, less congestion, cleaner air, less global warming, and less dependency on foreign oil; however, in today’s economy oil companies with monopoly power would simply raise their prices despite lower consumption. Monopolies can control price and quantity. Therefore rather than cause a gasoline shortage, monopolies will increase prices to realize more profits. The real result of the car insurance change is higher gas prices and premiums for commuters and logistical companies.
If the supply of money is held constant, a reduction in interest rates should increase the demand for money –causing a rightward shift of the demand curve. This shift in demand should drive prices higher, or in other words, should encourage inflation (all other factors held constant). Is this the price we have to pay to dampen the blow of an all out recession?
Critics suggest that the foundation's massive spending on malaria research is a classic case of a near-monopoly leading to market failure: in this case, a market in medical prowess. The Gates Foundation has unforeseen effects: “Gates can solve problems with money—but a lot of money leads to a monopoly, and discourages smaller rivals and intellectual competition.”
Some people at the WHO, a Geneva-based arm of the United Nations, openly worry that the foundation is setting up a new power centre that may rival their organisation's authority. Such conspiracy theorists point to the foundation's recent grant of over $100m to the University of Washington to evaluate health treatments and monitor national health systems—jobs supposed to be done by the UN agency.
Recessions hurt. But according to this article, recessions can be a welcome opportunity to make some strategic moves to get more market share. Where most companies try to survive by tightening the reins on costs, the author of this article suggests that cutting the right costs and increasing others can help improve the company’s position when the recession ends. Particularly, he argues that companies should increase advertising expenditures during the recession. If companies continue to develop new products and advertise them heavily, those products will be fresh on consumers’ minds when the economy turns upward again, and demand for those company's products will increase.
Am I the only one that feels like there is some kind of target on my back just because I am a business student? Luckily, predominate media personalities like John Stossel occasionally take the opportunity to write excellent articles like this one. It makes me start to wonder why mainstream America is so disapproving of those who make it their life’s interest to produce and expect compensation for doing so. Suggested remedy; require everyone to read “Atlas Shrugged”!
This article (watch the video) discusses the decline in math education, namely within Washington state. Although, I feel that it is easily representative of the broader picture throughout the United States. It makes me wonder if the decline in math skills demonstrated by American college students really is that significant. Does the seemingly low supply of mathematicians among American students indicate low prices for potential services rendered or are foreign workers simply a bargain substitute? Should the Federal Government begin to consider some kind of tariff or quota on foreign students seeking math related degrees? I think this is an important factor impacting the makeup of America’s human capital, and as graduate students preparing for professions in management it is something that we should pay more attention to. I believe that the business that ignores the importance of math also ignores the potential for increased profits.
Of the islands in Hawaii, Maui is the most affected, having roughly 50 cents higher prices than the other islands. Maui also lacks a major transit system which makes it harder for the residents to get around. Many businesses such as taxis and limousine services are now having low profits and are close to having to shut down because of the high prices. Many of the locals that have their families routed in Maui are now having trouble to make ends meet. With gas prices going to $4 it is making it very hard to survive.
Should the government help the Maui residents out? Or should we allow the free market to work, which may cause some current residents to have to either go on welfare or relocate to another state?
In this article it found many advocates for the government to get involved. Christine Mailloux, a telecommunications attorney was noted by saying, “Consumers can't count on competition alone to get wireless companies to become more customer-friendly.” She instead believes this can be solved through stronger regulations. However, we as business students have been taught that regulation creates barriers for effective trading. So which side is right? Should the government intervene and regulate? Or do you think over time the competition will drive down the costs?
After years of increasing demand and limited supply due to the ban, prices for these items should be expected to be high until these two factors correct themselves. Initially, the wealthy will be the beneficiaries of the new policy until competition between retailers brings the equilibrium of supply and demand down to prices levels where more of the population can afford them.
Perhaps Raul is a little more level-headed and less stubborn than his elder brother Fidel.
Another point to consider . . . . People will complain all day long about the price of gas, but I don't think the rising cost has really taken a complete toll yet. How many gas-guzzling vehicles do you pass on the highways every day? Stand in one spot on Cedar City's Main Street and take a quick tally of the percentage of vehicles that pass by that are fuel-efficient vs. gas hogs. Despite rampant complaints about inflated gas prices, people are continuing to purchase and drive big trucks and SUV's that average less than 10 miles per gallon. This indicates to me that the high energy costs haven't really hit us in the pocketbook yet. A more substantial change in behavior (i.e. driving more fuel-efficient vehicles) will be a better indicator that we really are suffering from the price increases.
Higher oil prices act like a tax increase on users. The result is that consumers have less money to spend on other things. Economists are suggesting that oil shocks do not hurt as much because oil is used less intensively than before, because the economy is more flexible and because central banks are better at controlling inflation.
After reading the article I continued to read the various reader comments and found a large number of people becoming upset and accusing Mr. Vanderhoek of treating education like a business. Several comments claimed equitable funding for all schools is a better option but gave no explanation why they felt that way. According to my logic if we break down all the variables in education we will find it looks like a business with inputs and a system producing outputs. We hope the final product is a well educated student. So why can't business principles be applied to elementary education with the market determining the demand and prices for teachers? Teachers always complain about being underpaid and parents always complain of a lack of quality educators. So let's see if Mr. Vanderhoek has something here. If Mr. Vanderhoek can bring in better talent by increasing demand he will be able to have a more qualified pool of educators with the idea of creating a better output. This would also put greater accountability on the shoulders of Principals and Education Boards if their schools and districts underperformed and extreme praise if it works. I may be naive to how school districts operate now but treating it more like a business sounds like a good idea to me.
It seems like all we are doing is putting a band-aid on the problem. If we were to stop focusing on keeping illegals out, and focused on refusing to give illegals (though legal immigrants are fine) a reason to come, maybe things would be better.
Currently, the Bush Administration is starting to enforce “E-Verify,” a system that requires employees to confirm employee work status. Federal fines up to $10,000 will be enforced for employers not willing to comply.
Of course there will be ways around this system as well. However, I feel that if we focused on employers and enforced the “E-Verify” program, illegals would have fewer reasons to come to the U.S. because they wouldn't be able to make money. Of course this would only be one element and one minor aid to a bigger problem, but who knows?
This article mentions the polls that show how the majority of Americans feel that free trade helps other countries more than it helps them. While I agree that it helps other countries more, it is still helping us more than if we had not traded at all. A little improvement is better than no improvement, even if other countries improve more. It is interesting how sometimes we don't want any success if it means others are more successful than us. When the division of surplus is uneven, it seems “unfair,” and many times we would rather have nothing than feel that we are treated unfairly. Americans say that they are willing to pay more for products to keep them produced in America, but Wal-Mart and other similar companies are still doing pretty well. I feel that if we impose barriers to imports, those countries will just go elsewhere and it will hurt businesses in America who need those imports to make their products.
Remember "Back to the Future," and when Marty goes into the future and orders a drink from a talking T.V.? Well now there's something similar to that at a wine-bar in New York. This article is about the new technology of ordering. Any customer can touch the bar and a screen, similar to an iPod screen, will appear. You select a category with your finger, and the computer segments the different varieties of drinks until the screen delivers you to your narrowed-down drink of choice.
Is this technology “same-old?” Kind of. We've already got touch screens similar to this, like for ATMs, self-check-outs, and computer screens. The restaurant that recently installed this device (for $5,000 to $10,000) wants to seem more “hip” and make wine “more approachable.”
So, will these screens just be a fad? What will be the return on investment as opposed to the typical paper menus? Will consumers find that a "technology menu" adds to their consumer surplus significantly more than a paper menu? I don't think I'd be willing to bet on this investment paying itself off.
Some of these countries hate us because America is such a dominant country that people can't stand it. However, some people hate us because they think that USA just can't keep their own business. All USA want to do is interefere with countries and go to war whenever they get a chance. The second statement, I do agree a little myself. Why do we constantly go to war, while other countries (even Europe) just do they own little thing?
By going to wars, it is not making some countries happy. At the same thing, we also lose lots of money. Another question is why after Afghanistan attacked USA, right after that incident we gave millions of dollars to them. We have also given millions of dollars to Iraq/Iran, and just lately in Africa. By giving millions to other countries, no wonder USA is in such a debt. If the government would just spend money on us, instead of in other countries, we would most likely not have seen recession, our exchange rate would have been stronger, and USA would have been stronger.
Man, I am scared that I am doing this post. Bring on the heat!
The part I am most interested in has to do with the embargo. The author argues that if the embargo has failed to deter Castro after nearly 50 years, then what's the point to continue it otherwise. Also, most would agree that the embargo has certainly emboldened Castro and helped to glorify his rule from the Cuban perspective. Finally, it is the people of Cuba who ultimately suffer as they are left near destitute. Certainly the communist policies have contributed the most to this state of poverty, but if we re-opened trade after all these years, we would no doubt benefit along with all the Cubans. I wouldn't mind the opportunity to visit the Caribbean island. I wonder what others think about ending the embargo.
Also, even if Americans cut back on consumption and demand stays stagnant in the US, the Middle East and China will continue to drive up demand which means prices are going to rise. With this situation, John B. Hess claims there is "[a]n oil crisis coming in the next ten years" due to both demand and supply.
The article points out that rental demand can be altered by more than price and quantity. Economic uncertainty and volatility in property values can also change consumer behavior.
I tend to side with those against the subsidy. Unless there is some way for the subsidy donors to demand that the suppliers charge a lower price for the treatment, there is no guarantee the treatment will get to Africans at a lower price. Especially where there are so few suppliers, the suppliers have, in essence, a monopoly on the market.
Those in favor of rental price ceilings claim that rent control keeps housing affordable for lower income individuals. However, the article from Business Week illustrates that the market can and will return to an equilibrium price on its own without the imposition of a price ceiling. The article discussed how the rental market became flooded with properties during the housing boom in 2005 and 2006. By 2007 there was an overabundance of properties without sufficient demand to occupy them. This alone was enough to start driving the market towards an equilibrium without the influence of a price ceiling.
A negative consequence of price ceilings is that property maintenance becomes less of a priority for landlords. With rent control in place, landlords start to realize less profit and start to cut back on expenses that are impacting the bottom line. There are some expenses they have control over (i.e. maintenance, property improvements, etc.) and there are other expenses that are fixed (utilities, property taxes, property management, etc.) When rent controls are imposed, landlords are forced to cut back on those variable expenses, thus properties become neglected and the landlord evolves into a "slumlord."
Some worry that without rent controls, rents will skyrocket beyond anyone's affordability level. Now where is the logic in that? If rents become too high, the number of vacancies will increase. In a free market where there are no rent controls, the landlords will respond to the increase in vacancies by lowering rents and offering incentives to renters. I suggest this is a much better way to run a market than imposing controls that create a false market run by a bunch of "slumlords."
However, do you guys think offshoring customer service is a good thing? I mean, in this article, it said that offshoring customer service would hurt businesses a lot. It made a point that when a person tries to call to get a question answered, he/she gets a person in another country with a different accent that is hard to understand. I think companies should be really careful offshoring customer service. If a customer gets mad, he or she would hardly come back to shop at that company. Without customers, an organization cannot survive.
With the baby boomers starting to retire, companies are now seeing the need to compete for the best of Generation Y. This article stated that more than half of Generation Y's graduates move back to their mom and dad's house for the extra support and time to help them find the job they really want. Because Generation Y is being so picky, companies are having to be more creative as they try to woo this generation's different wants and needs. It was found that this generation cares more about work-life balance. Jobs that have good people to work with and support volunteering are important. I think it's interesting to see the difference of generations: our grandparents hated having days off because it meant less money, whereas this generation loves having the occasional day off (after expenses are paid for) because sometimes their enjoyment is more important to them than getting a few extra dollars.
This article, however, warned me that while the refinancing may be good, I'll need to take care of it fast. It is actually the bond market that determines the mortgage rate, not the Fed. Fixed mortgages are linked to the 10-year Treasury, which is actually rising right now. However, these rates are still below 6%, and Quicken Loans chief economist Robert Walters said, "We don't get many opportunities to take a 30-year fixed below 6%." Adjustable-rate mortgages are pegged to the 1-year Treasury, which is expected to continue to decrease, so refinancing would be a good idea here.
It sounds like there's plenty of demand for the iPhone, but that the problem is the low demand for the AT&T network. There are plenty of substitutes for different networks, but not as many for an iPhone. Maybe Apple could come up with a different strategy that didn't depend so heavily on one network.
In 2005, the U.S. savings rate hit it's lowest level since 1933. Personal savings dropped to negative 0.5%, which means that Americans spent more than they made and dipped into their savings to make up the difference. The only other time the savings rate has been in negative numbers (according to the article published in 2006) was in 1932 and 1933 – prime years of the Great Depression. Analysts argue that a cause for the increased spending was consumers' confidence in the value of their homes.
I wonder how confident consumers are feeling about their homes in 2008?
The lack of agreement concerning the writer's strike at NBC is costing not just the writer's their salaries, but also the network, advertisers, and actors, to name a few. According to this article, at the recent Golden Globes show, “NBC lost millions of dollars in ad revenue, and award winners were deprived of instant publicity that could provide a box-office bump.” Last year's Globes ceremony had 20 million viewers, compared to a mere 5.8 million this year. NBC normally earns over $15 million from advertisements, but they will receive much less this year. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association lost a $6 million license fee from the network.
NBC and the writers have been at a standstill since December 7, 2007. While they continue to argue, more and more dollars will be lost to many. Plus, viewers won't get to watch the shows they enjoy. It seems that everyone is losing out here, but yet, still no agreement.
- Parents asked not to bring homemade cakes to school fêtes
- Flowers banned at a hospital in attempt to stop the spread of MRSA
- Hanging baskets banned in case they fall on people
- Children banned from using egg boxes in art class in case they catch salmonella
- Children forced to ride inflatable sheep at a Welsh Donkey Derby”
Ridiculous, isn't it? This article shares some of the things people and organizations in Britain have had to do to protect themselves from lawsuits and penalties. The overly protective rules have caused numerous unnecessary costs, hurting the economy.
Britain's government has set up a national campaign to stress the importance of self-reliance and to inform the public that the government is not responsible for every random accident that may happen.
If you asked someone if they wanted the world to be safer, naturally they would say yes. But we must keep in mind the trade-offs and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I think it's sad how out of hand some laws have become, but I'm sure those laws were made for protection from lawsuits.
Loss aversion is the tendency for people to strongly (usually two times as strong) prefer avoiding losses as opposed to achieving gains. This article demonstrates that a person would rather make $50,000 a year while those around him or her made $25,000, as opposed to making $100,000 a year while others made $250,000. Most people would rather “pay” $50,000 to be the one with the highest salary and not have the feeling of a loss. People would rather receive less money in a winning situation than to receive more money in a losing situation. Rationally, this does not make sense. However, psychological factors definitely come into play with salary, the stock market, and many other things in the business world.