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.