Kylie Jenner and the economics of her lip kits.

Kylie Jenner and the economics of her lip kits.
Swati Dalmia 

The youngest of the Jenner/Kardashian siblings, Kylie Jenner is a reality TV personality turned businesswoman. With her networth of about $900 million, she is on track to becoming the youngest billionaire in the world. Taking advantage of the plump lips that contributed to her rise to fame, Kylie Jenner launched her own cosmetics line called Kylie Cosmetics in 2015. But what was the reason for Kylie’s immense success? What was so special about her lip kits that made them sell out instantaneously and made her one of the richest teenagers in the world? Jenner’s strategic business plan that utilizes the concepts of scarcity and demand was a key element that helped her become an icon in the makeup industry. 

When the first three shades of Kylie Jenner’s lip kits were released, they sold out after a single minute due to high demand. With a new change in the taste of consumers (women wanting their lips to look fuller), the demand of her products drastically increased, causing subsequent releases of additional colours to be sold out in less than ten minutes. Despite retailing at $29, the lip kits became a unique phenomenon in the makeup industry for often being resold on eBay at a huge mark-up price, with bids on lip kits going as high as $10,000. This is because the lip kits identify as a status item and an item of scarcity. The high premium that consumers pay for Kylie Cosmetics is attributed to its scarcity in the market, the status that comes along with it, and the high number of beauty gurus and teenagers as consumers.

The selling out of new Kylie Cosmetics products in minutes after a release or restock is a classic example of demand exceeding supply. For marketing reasons, Kylie Cosmetics may be selling limited quantities of their products to create a frenzy around the brand. The buzz generated by the hyped brand can create more interest to consumers in the long-term and lead to higher demand. The difficulty of acquiring a lip kit cements its recognition as a status item. By creating scarcity in the market, Kylie Cosmetics is therefore able to make the brand seem more valuable. The demand for her lip kits increases due to determinants such as change in taste, change in expectations for the future and change in the number of consumers in the market.

While speed is the key factor which allocates the lip kits in the primary market, in the secondary market, the goods are solely allocated by consumers’ willingness to pay. Many resellers bulk order in the primary market with the intent to price discriminate for profit on the secondary market. Due to scarcity, independent resellers can sell at exorbitant prices on the secondary market. Although resellers profit from taking up more consumer surplus, they may create value by providing product availability in the late market and provide a means for those who are willing to pay more to get the product.

A significant part of the lipstick’s value comes from Kylie Jenner’s celebrity status and the endorsement of her well-known siblings. Beauty gurus and teenagers have preferences for Kylie Jenner’s products because she is a celebrity known for her full lips. There are many substitutes on the market for a matte lipstick with similar formulas, colours and quality. For instance, the products of Kylie Cosmetics and its sister company ColourPop are made by the same manufacturer. Many beauty bloggers claim that ColourPop’s Ultra Matte Lip liquid lipsticks are the inexpensive replicas of the Kylie Lip Kits at a cost of $6 per lipstick. If ColourPop and Kylie have the same manufacturing costs, the $25 price differential between the two company’s matte lipsticks can be attributed to Kylie Jenner’s brand. Avid fans are often willing to pay premiums for products they associate with their favourite figures in entertainment. For this reason, sneaker enthusiasts paid up to $1000 on Kanye West’s limited edition Yeezy Boost sneakers which retailed for $315.

In conclusion, it is apparent from the Kylie Cosmetics craze that there has been a strong desire in the marketplace for full lips like Kylie Jenner. The brand’s success is a result of Jenner using the concept of scarcity and the law of demand in her business. Despite the public’s mixed feelings towards Kylie Jenner, there is no doubt that she’s a great opportunist who has fuelled and capitalised on the need for a plump pout.

 Work Cited 

Canal, Emily. “Kylie Jenner’s lip kits, social status and the economics of scarcity.” Forbes, 2 Mar. 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/03/02/kylie-jenners-li p-kits-social-status-and-the-economics-of-scarcity/#62c41b412960.

Erdogan, Melodi. “Kylie Jenner’s Lip Kits Are On eBay For Waaay More Then The Original Price.” Bustle, 1 Dec. 2015, https://www.bustle.com/articles/126850-kylie-jenners-lip-kits- are-on-ebay-for-waaay-more-then-the-original-price.

Homes, Sally. “Kylie Jenner’s Lip Kits sold out in less than a minute.” Elle, 30 Nov. 2015, https://www.elle.com/beauty/makeup-skin-care/news/a32225/kylie-jenners-lip-kit-sold-out-in-less-than-a-minute/.

Robehmen, Natalie. “How 20-Year-Old Kylie Jenner Built A $900 Million Fortune In Less Than 3 Years.” Forbes, 11 Jul. 2018,https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalco vers/2018/07/11/how-20-year-old-kylie-jenner-built-a-900-million-fortune-in-less-than-3-years/.

Hurricane Florence

Luke Lochner
Hurricane Florence devastated the East coast, particularly South Carolina, North Carolina, and Maryland in September of 2018. It hit land on August 31st, 2018 and the storm and resulting flooding lasted until the 19th of September. Storms similar to this, such as Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston in 2017, and Hurricane Irma, which hit the West coast of Florida in 2017, greatly impact the nation’s economy due to the high cost of repairing and rebuilding damaged homes and buildings, death and destruction to livestock and farm land, and the temporary shut down of businesses in the aftermath of the storm. Ultimately, some businesses benefit from the hurricane, such as, insurance and finance companies and for disaster recovery, including, North Star Group Services.

The estimated total cost to repair damages from Florence is $17-$22 billion dollars and this number could increase (Domm). This includes housing, schools, and other buildings. Based on the visual, we can tell that this cost is far less than those of past devastating hurricanes. Fortunately, the 2 major ports in the Carolinas were not significantly damaged. The Port of Charleston is significant for the US economy as a cruise ship destination and because it handles a large amount of motor vehicle imports and exports. In 2015, the Port of Charleston ranked as the 6th port in the United States by cargo value, with $75 billion in imports and exports traded across the docks so it is important to the US economy to keep it fully functioning (Port). According to Zandi, the author of this article, he predicts that there will be, “about a 0.2 percentage point hit to GDP,” (Domm). This is only about half the impact that Hurricane Harvey had on Houston and 1/6 of the impact that Hurricane Irma had on Florida.

Due to the amount of damage Hurricane Florence inflicted on the east coast there will be an abundance of  job opportunities in construction and for retailers that sell buildings and supplies (Wiseman). This will aid the US economy because it will potentially reduce the amount of unemployment and reduce the amount of poverty in the US. This will also boost the profits in those retailing businesses.

Some of the companies in the area handled waste of animals, “including toxic animal waste containment sites, which sent bacteria and hazardous chemicals into the water,” (Irfan). All the bacteria and hazardous chemicals need to be cleaned up in some way and that will cost money. Not only will costs need to be utilized in rebuilding and fixing up damaged buildings, it will be needed to clean up the streets of materials from those houses and buildings but also the chemicals and bacteria that is in the flood waters.

Overall, this hurricane will not have as large of an effect on the US economy as past hurricanes have. “Hurricanes Harvey (in Texas) and Irma (in Florida) last year sliced U.S. economic growth in the third quarter by about a half-percentage point. And the storms caused a whopping $180 billion in damage.” Compare this to Hurricane Florence which is projected to, “shave economic growth in the current quarter by one- to two-tenths of a percentage point,” (Davidson) and we can see by the data that the two hurricanes last year took a much greater toll on the economy than Florence will.

Ultimately, the costs and the effect on the economy are not the most important thing when it comes to natural disasters. The most important data points are the number of lives lost and people affected.  The numbers are important when it comes to rebuilding those people’s lives and giving them comfort and support through the process.

Works Cited
Davidson, Paul. “Hurricane Florence, despite Destruction, Will Likely Have Small Impact on US Economy.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 18 Sept. 2018.
Domm, Patti. “Hurricane Florence Damage Estimated at $17 Billion to $22 Billion - Moody's Analytics.” CNBC, CNBC, 17 Sept. 2018.
Irfan, Umair. “Hurricane Florence Caused up to $22 Billion in Damages. Climate Change Made the Storm Worse.” Vox, Vox, 3 Oct. 2018.
“Port of Charleston.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Apr. 2018.
Wiseman, Paul. “Businesses Are Bracing for Hurricane Florence. Here's How It Will Effect Costal Economies.” Inc.com, Inc., 13 Sept. 2018.

Stock Market Returns Effected by Real World Events

Anthony Desidero

In the summer of 2015, tens of thousands of gamers flocked to an airtight dome in the middle of LA for an annual conference called E3. It was the hottest gaming event of the year, with multiple announcements and reveals from major game companies. But one unveiling had an unintended by-product. As Square Enix finished off their press conference, they announced one final project; a remake of the critically acclaimed game “Final Fantasy VII.” Almost instantly after this announcement, this happened:

That is a raise of nearly 3% in under an hour. Now there isn’t really an average stat for measuring market return value because the stock market fluctuates so much, but in order for a company’s stocks to suddenly surge to their highest levels since 2008, something major had to have happened. The same goes for any other market or company. In irder to hit umkbers like this, something good (or bad) had to have happened. This leads to to the point of this discussion: Stock market fluctuations depend solely on the supply/demand curve of that company, and the amount of bad/good PR it has.

Take, for instance BP. Their overall stock shares were fine through the 2010 year, until an oversight of basic safety procedures allowed the Gulf Oil Spill in April of that year, resulting in the largest oil spill recorded in history. Over the course of 60 days, BP’s stocks dropped 48%. 

Both supply and PR are the cause of this here. The terrible press of being associated with the worst oil spill ever, having to clean up the damage, and the natural ramifications would deter investors quickly. Along with this, the supply of oil dropped significantly, and consumers are more likely to get their oil from different places, due to the PR the company received. This caused a massive withdrawal of stocks, as the stockbrokers (or rather, robots that manage and trade stocks for other humans) quickly sold what they could for as much profit as possible. But does any of this matter? Do companies really care about how much or little their stocks go for? Do they even affect the company at all?

Well...Yes and no. If I buy a share of BP for $60 and sell it for $20, then I’ve lost $40, not the company. Stock selling and management is a whole nother field in itself. But at the same time, a company that lives on its public identity will die by it. The Lehman banks went from riches to rags due to their stocks crashing completely during the 2008 calamity. It all depends on how much a company lives by its self image, and by how much stockbrokers and consumers pay attention to them.

At the end of the day, the stock market is a crazy, volatile slot machine in disguise as something professional. You sit down at the table, and there are countless bets you can place. Which one is the right one? The only way to tell is by doing the hardest thing of all: Waiting. 

Works Cited

“BP Shares Recover after Reassurance.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news/companies/BP_stock/index.htm.

Burke, Jackson. “Final Fantasy VII Remake Boosts Square Enix Stock.” CNBC, CNBC, 17 June 2015, www.cnbc.com/2015/06/17/sy-vii-remake-boosts-square-enix-stock-to-highest-level-2008.html.

Palmer, Brian. “Does It Matter to a Company If Its Stocks Lose Value?” Slate Magazine, Slate, 9 Aug. 2011, slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/08/does-it-matter-to-a-company-if-its-stocks-lose-value.html.

Is Amazon a Monopoly?

Written by: Stephanie Varin

Is Amazon a Monopoly? 

The growth of the Amazon, the e-commerce company, is staggering. Year over year, they have consistently grown by $15 billion dollars, according to to CNBC. It’s growth has been enormous within the past few years as it has absorbed many companies from several different industries. This worries economists and politicians across the board, including POTUS, Donald Trump. In fact, if Trump is reelected, it is very possible he will appeal to the Senate in order to create new antitrust laws that might force Amazon to break up. Why all the fuss? Many believe that Amazon is quickly becoming too big and too powerful. In short, Amazon may be becoming a monopoly. 

So, is Amazon becoming a monopoly? Well, no. Though some believe the company is becoming the textbook definition of a controlling power in the market, as least for our standards, it isn’t. According the Merriam-Webster, “a monopoly occurs when complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market rests with a single entity,”, and the FTC defines a monopoly as a company with +50% total market share, whereas Amazon only controls 5% of all retail sale in the US (Forbes). However, it does exhibit some monopolistic tendencies (see this video for a summary). For example, about 1 in every 2 dollars spent online is spent at Amazon. Also, in 2016, Amazon’s sales were six times greater than the online sales of Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Nordstrom, Home Depot, Macy’s, and Costco, combined (HowStuffWorks). Not only this, but Amazon seems to be dipping its toe into every pond out there, and has significant market value in many industries, including, but not limited to, electronics retail, fashion, consumable manufacturing, food delivery, grocery, bookstores, healthcare, pharmacy, and web services (CNBC). With all of its market holdings, Amazon is making many companies within these industries very nervous, and could very well threaten their performance, especially that of brick and mortar stores. So why isn’t the FTC taking action against this retail giant? Well, it’s all based in the consumer welfare. Because Amazon’s prices are so low, one of the many reasons that consumers love the site, it can’t be seen as threatening the consumers, and thus some economists don’t see it as a problem (Forbes). Also, it isn’t restricting trade which is the largest reason why monopolies are restricted and banned -- government wants to promote competitive and free trade. 

So, is Amazon a monopoly by traditionally defined standards? No, but that does not mean that Congress could not create new antitrust laws that redefine what a monopoly is, and if that happens, Amazon could be in deep trouble. 

Works Cited

Hanbury, Kate Taylor Mary. “Amazon's Growth Could Threaten These 10 Industries.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 28 June 2018, www.businessinsider.com/amazon-is-killing-these-7-companies-2017-7#healthcare-companies-8.

Ladd, Brittain. “Is Amazon A Monopoly? Donald Trump Thinks So.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 30 July 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/brittainladd/2018/07/29/amazon-is-not-a-monopoly-president-trump-yet/#46aa580c4735.

Markets, Economy &. “Here's Why Amazon Isn't a Monopoly.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 15 Aug. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/amazon-stock-price-not-a-monopoly-2017-8.

Salinas, Sara. “Amazon Sales Grew by $15 Billion Year over Year - Its Peers Don't Come Close to That Level of Growth.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 July 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/amazon-sales-grew-by-15-billion-year-over-year-blowing-away-peers.html.

“Why Is Amazon Not Considered a Monopoly?” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 11 Dec. 2017, money.howstuffworks.com/why-is-amazon-not-considered-monopoly.htm.

Sea Turtles, Straw and the Economy: How does this affect you?

Sea Turtles, Straws, and the Economy: How Does This Affect You?
Maddie Pieper

Starbucks, an internationally and insanely popular coffee chain, announced to globally eliminate plastic straws from all of their locations by 2020. This announcement is in regards to the overwhelming amount of plastic in our ocean, and how it’s killing at least 100 million marine animals annually. So much plastic is dumped into our oceans, killing 700 species of animals. While Starbucks’ promise to ban plastic straws form their facilities won’t solely fix the problem, it will help decrease the amount of plastic in our oceans.


However, the cost of saving our ocean ecosystem is the price of the straw manufacturers. By converting to no straws, nearly 2,000 jobs would be lost in New York City, 8,000 in California, and 400 million dollars in economic activity. If no one is ordering plastic straws, the manufacturers will go out of business. Banning plastic straws sounds like a great plan when thinking short term, but long term, could it do more harm than good? The California State Water Resources Control Board released a study that said, “mere substitution would not result in reduced trash generation if such product substitution would be discarded in the same manner as the banned item” (The Daily Wire). Even though reusable straws are environmentally more friendly, if we continually dispose of them as we did prior to the ban, our oceans will still be affected by the waste. The table below shows the cost and effects of banning plastic straws in New York City alone. In total, it would cost approximately 91.3 million dollars to eliminate plastic straws from only one city.


See link here to table here for more information

The plastic straw ban has been controversial for years now, regaining popularity in the news due to Starbucks’ promise (Starbucks Newsroom). Plastic straws are something so ordinary and a part of our everyday culture, many wouldn’t think have how big of an impact they have on our earth and our economy. Are the jobs lost worth the reduction of the trash in the ocean, or will skipping the straw help us more in the long run?


Works Cited
Lockhart, Keely. “Plastic Straw Removed from Turtle's Nose by Marine Biologists in Heartbreaking Video .” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 22 Mar. 2016, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/plastic-straw-removed-from-turtles-nose-by-marine-biologists-in/.

“Plastikmüll Im Meer.” Syrdallschoulen, portal.education.lu/syrdallschoulen/KIDS/News-fir-Kids/ArtMID/4828/ArticleID/560209/Plastikm252ll-im-Meer.

“Starbucks to Eliminate Plastic Straws Globally by 2020.” Starbucks Newsroom, 9 July 2018, news.starbucks.com/press-releases/starbucks-to-eliminate-plastic-straws-globally-by-2020.

“These 5 Marine Animals Are Dying Because of Our Plastic Trash ... Here's How We Can Help.” One Green Planet, 5 Feb. 2017, www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/marine-animals-are-dying-because-of-our-plastic-trash/.

“Http://Www.ijaerd.com/Papers/finished_papers/IJAERDV03I0528370.Pdf.” International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development, vol. 3, no. 05, 2016, doi:10.21090/ijaerd.030517.

Paid, Sick and Family Leave

Anika King
Economics B1
Paid Sick and Family Leave

Currently, there is an uprise of concerns over the ability to have paid sick/ family leave time. It’s increasing popularity has been a hot topic for debates since United States is one of the only countries that doesn’t provide this opportunity to it’s employers and employees. Therefore, some companies like Amazon have taken it into their own hands to provide for their employees. So far, it has shown many benefits for the company and may help support the economy.

First of all, we do have a small step in the right direction for paid leave provided by the FMLA which has shown to provide many benefits for people who use it. But, what are these benefits? “According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, about 90% of employers reported that California’s paid family leave policies had either a positive effect or no effect on productivity and profit. Around 96% agreed that it decreased employee turnover and about 99% believed that it boosted employee morale (Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania). Therefore, the benefits of paid sick/family leave would be tremendous. It would also benefit business instead of hurting them. In return, this helps grow the economy.

Some benefits companies have observed are fewer worker turnovers. This is beneficial because, the process of finding a new employee is very time consuming. You first need to recruit and/or have many applicants. Then, the additional time it takes for them to train in their field or get acclimated to the environment can take even more time. Therefore, by having a temporary substitution and paying someone on leave is much more beneficial. Paid leave would also help women stay in the workforce instead of leaving when wanting to pursue a family. Having a new born child and growing your family should be a moment of pure bliss not anxious nerves of how you will be able to support your family. Therefore, paid leave would be beneficial for many women in the workforce. Especially because many women don’t have a reliable male figure in the household anymore.


https://fairygodboss.com/maternity-leave-resource-center/international-perspective

As you can see America is falling behind for paid sick and family leave. Not very encouraging is it?

Now, imagine going to a restaurant and ordering your favorite mac and cheese...so creamy and delicious. Then later that night you figure out your chef who made the yummy dinner has the flu and was obviously touching your food. According to The New York Times, “Each week about 1.5 million Americans without paid sick leave go to work despite feeling ill.” Which if you think about it, that’s pretty gross. Even worse, the most common jobs where ill employees are likely to attend work because the opportunity cost of not going is too high are hospitals and restaurants. The two easiest places to spread germs and communicable diseases. By providing paid medical leave for employees it is much safer especially for customers and patients in hospitals who are very vulnerable to sickness due to their weakened immune system. A few states that offer paid sick leave to their employees have dramatically reduced flu cases per year. “Flu rates would fall 5 percent if paid sick leave were universal,” (New York Times). Besides, these facts imagine the increased access employee’s would have to doctors with paid work leave. Being able to see a doctor around a work schedule can be extremely difficult. This would help reduce this problem greatly.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/paid-family-medical-leave-in-the-united-states:-good-for-families-good-for-the-economy
Here are the countries that support paid sick leave and those who do not offer it to employees and employers.

Therefore, with the extensive amount of benefits that paid sick/family leave can offer...why shouldn’t we put this law into action? The benefits benefit everyone too, not just the person who stays home because they don’t feel good. This helps the employees, employers, and the economy. The increased support will help reduce worker-turnover, help keep women in the work force, and slow the spread of communicable diseases. The safety and practicality of this law are without a question beneficial. So, c’mon United States make a move on paid sick and family leave.

Works Cited

Denly, Carla. “Paid Family Medical Leave in the United States: Good for Families, Good for the Economy.” UCLA Newsroom, 28 Feb. 2018, newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/paid-family-medical-leave-in-the-united-states:-good-for-families-good-for-the-economy.

“Economic Benefits of Paid Sick and Family Leave.” Penn Wharton Public Policy Initative, publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2054-economic-benefits-of-paid-sick-and-family-leave.

Frakt, Austin. “The High Costs of Not Offering Paid Sick Leave.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/upshot/the-high-costs-of-not-offering-paid-sick-leave.html.

Machicado, Claudia Calderon. “The Business Case for Paid Leave and Paid Sick Days.” Center for American Progress, 20 Aug. 2014, www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2014/04/17/88243/the-business-case-for-paid-leave-and-paid-sick-days/.

How does Hunting affect the Economy

Tyler Hintz
Econ Blog Post
Reuter

How Does Hunting Affect the Economy?

For millions of people around America and all around the world, hunting has become an addiction that flows through hunters veins and keeps them coming back to do the same thing with the same intensity and eagerness as the year before. Hunting is a lifestyle for many, but even for those that choose not to let an arrow fly or pull the trigger in the fall, hunting many still benefit them without them even knowing it. Hunting has a profound effect on the economy as it provides jobs at different outfitter stores around the nation, as well as a bunch of revenue that goes towards different purposes.

Even though it may not seem like a big business, hunting supports more than sixty-eight thousand jobs and has annual impact of some thirty-eight billion dollars on the economy. Hunting revenue primarily comes from the sale of licenses but it also is made from all of the people that buy the gear they need. Because there are so many different seasons of hunting, the sales of products and licenses can create profit throughout the whole year. Not just during the fall when most of the hunting seasons take place. Hunting also supports motels and tent companies stay in business when they take trips to different states for bigger hunts. Hunting itself has created its own line of outdoor stores like Cabelas and Gander Outdoors which is a big money maker.

No matter what the age, one thing is for sure. Hunting is hot and getting hotter. Did you know that some sixteen million Americans will hunt this year? The combined revenue alone from this will be a giant spike in the government's revenue over the next few months once hunting starts to heat up. Hunters spend an average of twenty-two billion dollars each season. All of this money spent on all of the gear means that hunting is good for all of those companies.

Below is a chart showing all of the sales in 1996 done by hunters as well as jobs that were created. Imagine the growth of the amount of hunters over the last twenty years and the amount this number has grown by.

US 1996 Hunting Economic Impacts

	Deer	Migratory Birds	Upland Game Bird (Quail, Pheasant, Grouse only)	All Hunting
Retail Sales	$10,324,904,373	$2,996,257,139	$1,895,704,348	$22,104,313,660
Multiplier Effect	$27,858,958,706	$8,154,525,482	$4,903,780,081	$60,998,344,806
Salaries and Wages	$7,200,082,463	$2,116,177,982	$1,201,073,493	$16,120,559,638
Jobs	331,904	95,748	55,546	704,601
State Sales Tax Revenues	$581,054,859	$178,480,197	$128,803,838	$1,068,110,791
State Income Tax Revenues	$148,594,333	$37,995,873	$22,524,049	$322,236,505
Fed. Income Tax Revenues	$763,392,226	$216,155,138	$125,587,037	$1,725,812,994

Retail Sales	Multiplier Effect	Earnings	Jobs	Sales Tax	State Income Tax	Fed. Income Tax
$982,097,906	$2,100,374,184	$618,208,449	26,802	$59,844,553	$6,688,258	$66,398,026

Source: “The Economic Importance of Hunting.” The Economic Importance of Hunting - California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/econ-hunting.html.

As you can see hunting truly creates jobs and alot of revenue. As people around the world continue to find hunting as an interest, these numbers will simply continue to climb and big outfitters like Cabelas will continue to grow in sales, as well as the companies they endorse. So as we hunters continue to gear up and purchase annual licenses, the government will continue to receive revenue. And that is good for our economy.




“The Economic Importance of Hunting.” The Economic Importance of Hunting - California Department of Fish and Wildlife, www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/econ-hunting.html.

“Hunting in America - The Economy.” Protect The Harvest, 19 Nov. 2015, protecttheharvest.com/2014/11/14/hunting-america-economy/.