Rugby

Gwennette Ross

Mrs. Straub

A1A2,B1B2 AP Economics

January 12th, 2017

For years women and young adults like me choose a sport that we love. Soccer, Softball, Track, are just some of the sports that  girls go into because we like it and want to pursue it as a possible career. Or in some cases it's just a sport we are forced into because that is what girls are “suppose to do”. In the most remote places where poverty is an issue young girls look and dream about there future and where will they be. The most common sports out there is soccer baseball and rugby.

When dreaming about their careers, job searching especially in sports can be difficult when you want to become an athlete. Finding the sport that you love and are able to stick with it is very hard because the different opportunity costs. We usually start in high school or even earlier than that when falling in love with that particular sport.

When it comes down to graduating and going to college you have to travel, and when picking a sport in college the opportunity cost is that you don’t really have the college experience and you don’t get to study quite as much like a  normal student due to a lot of practices, workouts and conditioning and being mostly on the road throughout the states. Even the places where the poverty threshold sometimes is an issue for parents aren’t able to get their children into sports or the right equipment for that sport and that's why rugby is simple and easy because you don’t need pads or anything like that just shoes.

There are many women now  that are choosing  to play rugby after being in the sport when in high school. From personal experience when seeing the 2016 Summer Olympics when rugby was introduced it opened a lot of eyes. After seeing them play more and more young girls are trying rugby and they are seeing if it is the sport for them. The chart above shows that because of the growth in the sport from 2015 , in the 2016 Summer Olympics there were actually more women players than there was men.

In conclusion in the women’s rugby community, the olympics have opened a greater opportunity for them and young girls to see that  rugby is a great sport. More and more they are seeing that there will be more women getting more jobs as a professional rugby athletes. If we increase the knowledge of the sport then maybe by 2020 there will be more women playing the game. Starting in the more remote areas like parts of Brazil and Kenya will get more girls interested not only to try something new but to get them out there and learning something as this can be a possible career.

Elderly Care

Elderly Care

Written by: Allison Rokus

As the Baby Boomer generation is reaching retirement age, concerns regarding their financial well being are arising.  For the entire second half of the 20th century, the baby boomers were clearly the largest generation in America. When they were children being supported by parents, or members of the workforce, this was not an issue. However, as they are becoming dependents once again, their retirement preparations clearly have not been sufficient.  Studies show that 70% of elderly people will now need at least three years of full-time care in their lifetime (Bowser).

Furthermore, 21% of married Social Security recipients and 43% of single Social Security recipients age over 65 years depend on Social Security for 90% or more of their income (NCOA). However, Social Security was intended to supplement an income or a retirement fund, not replace it.  Many elderly people have found that their Social Security benefits alone are not enough for them to live a comfortable lifestyle. The current solution has been to spend all of their retirement and savings to the point that they can qualify as poor enough to receive Medicaid, which will pay for a bed and a full-time care facility while Medicare will not. This becomes a problem, because Medicaid was not intended to be used by all elderly people. It was intended for the poor, and these people were not expected to become so poor. Now, it becomes an issue for Medicaid, as Medicaid is a means-tested program meaning that it is intended for people already in poverty who have demonstrated need, not people quintessentially trying to become poor. With their 401(k)s, IRAs, and a variety of other long-term investments, elderly people are expected to be prepared for retirement. That leaves economists with the question of what went wrong.  One large factor is that elderly people are living much longer than expected. When they entered the workforce at age 20, the life expectancy for males was only 66 years old (Berkeley).  Now, that life expectancy has increased by 14 years to 86 years old (Social Security Administration).

If this change in life expectancy was not accounted for and an elderly person spent an average amount of money per year per year of about $55,000, they would be over one million dollars short of the money they expected to need (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). This does not account for long-term illnesses or other unexpected costs, which are high in this demographic. With their retirement now imminent, it is imperative that a solution is quickly found.

This video is pretty dramatic, but is has a quality explanation of why seniors retirement resources are becoming so depleted.

Many experts find the best solution to be long-term care insurance. Part of the reason that long-term care insurance has not been widely effective in the past is that the risk for all recipients is so high. Because 70% of elderly people will need three or more years of care, this makes him very high risk to be insured. If auto insurance companies knew that 70% of people would get into accidents they would not issue as many policies.  Also, the current long term care insurance policies that do exist are not being bought or have not been bought by the elderly. This seems to show a lack of demand. However, when interviewed, most elderly people indicated that they would buy such a policy. This then becomes a market failure, as there is a good that is demanded, but not supplied by the current market, even though the resources needed to create such a product are available.  The best solution currently seems to be a reform in long-term care insurance that would help the elderly to receive long-term care without having to deplete their life savings. By working with healthcare providers to develop policies that work and are effective, insurance providers could potentially receive more customers, more revenue, and a great benefit to society that cannot afford to support so many elderly people in their current behaviors.  

Works Cited

Bowser, Betty Ann. "Why Long-Term Care for U.S. Seniors Is Headed for ‘Crisis’." PBS. PBS, 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

"CONSUMER EXPENDITURES--2015." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Donnelly, Laura. "Elderly Care Crisis Looms as Ministers Accused of Living 'in Fantasy World'." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

"Life Expectancy in the USA, 1900-98." Life Expectancy in the USA, 1900-98. Berkeley, n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

NCOA. "Poverty Facts About the Elderly." NCOA. National Council on Aging, 20 Dec. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

"Sans Everything." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 01 Oct. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

"Social Security." Calculators: Life Expectancy. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Sodha, Sonia. "Underfunded and Overstretched – the Crisis in Care for the Elderly." The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 10 Dec. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

"What's Behind America's Elder Care Crisis." Stanford Graduate School of Business. Stanford, n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2017.

Graffiti and its Costs

Graffiti and its Costs

By Lizzy Strange

Whether you roll your eyes whenever you see graffiti or you stop and enjoy the tagged designs as art, graffiti plays a huge role in most every American city’s economics. There has been great controversy over whether or not graffiti is art, and many businesses have allowed and even encouraged their buildings to be covered in street graffiti. Some cities are even pushing towards hiring more artists to create murals on various blank walls or businesses, theatres, etc. Yet despite the support for more art in the city from some businesses, the cost of removing tagged images that are seen in the eyes of the law as vandalism still plays a crucial role in the economics and budget of American cities.

In a news report from KRQE included below, the city of Albuquerque faced such a large graffiti problem that they had more than 70 graffiti clean-up jobs a day for that year. The mayor of the city, Mayor Barry, also commented on the 68,000 calls for graffiti removal that were made that year as well. Since it’s the city’s job to clean up the spray-painted images, the mayor called for an increase in 3 more people on the graffiti removal crew, increasing the budget and concluding a group of 18 people, 15 originally, to clean up the streets (“Major, City”).

Not only will this increase the demand and supply for labor and take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers and the city government, but the cost of the time and resources used to clean up this graffiti is not something that is easily made back either. For some people, the issue of graffiti brings people out of the crowd to speak up about the topic. David Brant of San Clemente, California, sent a letter to the editor of the San Clemente Times after hearing about an art endeavor by Joshua Host of the House of Trestles to bring art to the city. Brant commented on the idea to bring street artists to this project with a more cynical point of view, saying, “I hope that Mr. Host and Mr. Heinz realize that Bandit and other street ‘artists’ create graffiti throughout San Clemente on public and private property that the city of San Clemente spends thousands of dollars yearly to remove” (Brant, David). Even though Host never publicly announced his endorsement of all graffiti, Brant still has a point; despite all the efforts some people and artists may take to bring art to any city, there still lingers the type of graffiti that is tagged alongside businesses and buildings that never asked for the images, and is seen as a violation of the property. In Arizona, graffiti and other criminal damage according to Haley Walters of the News-Herald Havasu News is not taken lightly: “Under Arizona law, criminal damage can be a felony offense if the cost of damage exceeds $1,000” (Walters, Haley).

From California to New Mexico and most all American states in between, graffiti is a cost that all cities must take into consideration and make room for in their budgets when they are deciding how to reduce the amount of damaging graffiti their city experiences. It would be interesting to see an increase in city murals and more local artists express their art on the sides of businesses and other buildings, but before the economy can decide what art they want put up around their cities they must first examine the costs of removing all their unwanted graffiti. Whether or not you see graffiti as art, the fact still remains that there is vandalism in cities that is costing these cities a lot of money and is an issue for their economies.

Works Cited

Brant, David. “Letter: Street Artists Costs Taxpayers, Property Owners.” San Clemente Times, San Clemente Times, 22 Dec. 2016, http://www.sanclementetimes.com/letter-street-artists-costs-taxpayers-property-owners/.

“Graffiti City Wallpapers HD download free.” (Image) Pixels Talk, PixelsTalk.Net, 28 Dec. 2015, http://www.pixelstalk.net/graffiti-city-wallpapers-hd-download-free/.

“Graffiti Removal.” (Image) GHB Window Cleaning Services Incorporated, GHB Window Cleaning, 2017, http://ghbwindowcleaning.com/graffiti-removal.

“Mayor, City Council proposed budgets seek 3 more graffiti removal workers.” (Video) KRQE News 13, YouTube, LLC, 16 May 2016, https://youtu.be/jQ2x9zu5czs.

Walters, Haley. “Rash of graffiti incidents reported this week.” Today’s News-Herald Havasu News, Havasu News, 5 Jan. 2017, http://www.havasunews.com/news/rash-of-graffiti-incidents-reported-this-week/article_c83e8b98-d30f-11e6-8f24-37d658ced576.html.

Increasing Ticket Prices

Increasing Ticket Prices

Jess Fonte

As time has progressed, ticket prices for professional sporting events have continued to increase year after year. However, I believe it’s important that people still decide to attend these events because if they don’t, total revenue for the teams will decrease, therefore causing a lower supply of tickets that will make it even harder to get a ticket. There is a very logical reason for these increases in ticket prices, specifically for the NFL during this time of year.

During playoffs, ticket prices rise even more due to the fact that more people want to attend these games. This causes the demand to increase, therefore causing the price that the consumers will need to pay in order to purchase these tickets to increase as well. Although this causes the cost to be higher, many people believe that attending a playoff game for a higher price ticket is completely worth the opportunity cost that they are paying. Yes the game could be viewed on TV at home, but the consumer does not receive as many benefits as they do when they physically attend the game.

Below is a graph that shows the rising ticket prices in the NFL from 2006 to 2016. The prices are continuing to rise after every year which means that the demand for these tickets are continuing to increase. It is beneficial that this continues to happen because if people stop attending the games, football as we know it will not be the same- and no one wants that. Therefore, this makes the cost of attending these expensive football games completely worth it.

Works Cited

"Average NFL ticket price 2006-2016 | Statistic." Statista. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2017.

Parker, Tim. "Why The Prices Of Sports Tickets Vary So Much." Investopedia. N.p., 04 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Jan. 2017.

Effects of Fast Fashion

Effects of Fast Fashion

Written by: Danya Almoghrabi

Fast fashion is a controversial world-wide business. There are many fast fashion brands like Forever 21, Zara, H&M, etc. Basically, they are clothing companies that renew their clothing very quickly, specifically every one or two weeks. They lower their clothing prices by using cheaper material in order to create more products and sales. Although it may seem like fast fashion is an irrelevant topic, it has many negative externalities towards the economy and the environment. People should stop or reduce their purchases of fast fashion clothing in order to  improve our economy and environment.

       Fast Fashion Brands

Many costs are put into the fast fashion industry. With more products being made and more technology being used, they cause pollution that negatively affects the environment we are living in. According to EcoWatch, “The clothing industry is the second largest polluter in the world ... second only to oil”. This proves how bad fast fashion companies really are. These companies create what is called “sweatshops” that consist of underpaid workers, usually oversees, that are put to work in harsh conditions for people to wear. Many consumers are unaware of how poorly these workers are being treated.

Example of a Sweatshop

Additionally, there are economical disadvantages of shopping at fast fashion stores. Although “Americans carry over $800 billion in credit card debt”, many continue to regularly shop, increasing that debt even more. Brands like Zara earn a yearly revenue of about 19.7 billion which only a small fraction goes to their workers producing the clothes (Josephson).

Think about where your clothing is from and how it was made. Almost everyone is a contributor to fast fashion companies. Fortunately, there are ways to reduce the real costs of fast fashion. One solution is to thrift shop instead of shop at fast fashion stores. This reduces waste of unworn clothing. Another solution is to buy designer items. Although this may be unrealistic for many, buying fewer, well-made items last much longer than cheaply-made clothing.

Waste Produced by the Fast Fashion Industry

The clothing supply of fast fashion companies is very high compared to designer brands which produces much more waste. The demand for the fast fashion clothing should decrease, while the demand for thrifted and designer items should increase to improve our economy and environment. Consumers need to rethink their opportunity costs and educate themselves on this topic in order to lessen the negative externalities of this industry.

Josephson, Amelia. "The Economics of Fast Fashion." SmartAsset. N.p., 27 Nov. 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2017.

EWContributor. "Fast Fashion Is the Second Dirtiest Industry in the World, Next to Big Oil." EcoWatch. N.p., 02 Oct. 2016. Web. 08 Jan. 2017.

Spotify and Other Music Streaming Services

Spotify and Other Music Streaming Services

Cassie Doubek

Music streaming services have become increasingly popular as more and more users prefer the unlimited access to new music these services provide. Spotify is one of these sites that has skyrocketed into success over the last few years. With over 100 million total users as of June 2016 and 40 million paying subscribers as of September 2016 (see the graph below) Spotify encourages users to upgrade to Spotify Premium for $10/month, a platform where it continues to differentiate itself from other music streaming sites.

   

With Spotify Premium the negative externality of advertisements every few songs is eliminated and sound quality is improved. Premium also unlocks new features including unlimited skips and song choice (you are no longer forced to listen through shuffle mode). You can also listen offline meaning you can listen anywhere without using data which gives it an advantage over competitors like Pandora. Spotify also offers a discounted student package at $5/month and family package for $15/month for family use of up to five people. The graph below emphasizes how these features result in more success over other streaming sites such as Apple Music.

With all the unmatched features and discounted prices, it is easy to see why Spotify has continued to increase its user base. The upgrade to Spotify Premium will provide music-lovers with many benefits that outweigh the cost of the monthly subscription fee.

Works Cited

Stegner, Ben. "Is It Worth Upgrading to Spotify Premium?" MakeUseOf. N.p., 20 July 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017.

McIntyre, Hugh. "With 30 Million Users, Spotify Is Gaining Subscribers Faster And Faster." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017.

"Spotify now has 100M users, but only twice as many paid customers as Apple Music." 9to5Mac. N.p., 20 June 2016. Web. 07 Jan. 2017.

BBC's Sherlock and the Economy

Economics Blog Post:

---

BBC’s Sherlock and the Economy

BBC has been quite popular throughout the world, and it only seems to increase its popularity because of its creation in outstanding TV shows.  With many British TV shows, it has made its way to U.S. television and throughout many countries in the world.  Sherlock is one of many TV shows made from BBC, and it has increased its popularity since its release to the public in 2010.  This series is based on Sir Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novels, but it’s modernized to fit the current generation with the creativity and uniqueness to add.  With only three seasons, and a fourth coming in January, the high demand for the show will only be getting higher.

Sherlock has gotten fantastic financial boosts for BBC, and it’s one of its biggest selling exports.  These exports have helped demographically because it is licensed to 224 territories worldwide--which is higher than any other program in the UK.  This also includes how international sales have increased by 9.6% because of this population difference in each country.  The head of BBC drama expects the fourth season to better the third financially, which will help aid in the demand for the series as a product.  BBC Worldwide has generated more profits each year, and had an 11% rise on the previous year--making the funding budget even higher than it was before.  Because Sherlock is licensed to PBS in the U.S., it has helped in the process of higher budgets for the future shows, as well.  “Sherlock has made a lot of money”, Stephenson stated, “In the US, the assumption is you have to make 12 or 24 episodes.  Sherlock has made nine episodes over the course of three years, yet it’s been such a big hit.  Ultimately, it comes down to amazing creativity--whatever its shape or size, creativity does drive commerciality.”  Mainly, the vast creativity in this show has improved profits and caused higher demand than most TV shows.

With this creativity, the demand of the series has increased, causing the supply to decrease.  The DVD of series three received the most pre-orders for a series yet to be broadcasted, and it has caused prices to increase for some time.  But because of these big fans, it causes the Sherlock products to be inelastic.  The quantity demanded for these few seasons--and its products--does not change much despite any price change made.  “The amazing thing about Sherlock is that every time we’ve done it, sales and ratings have gone up,” Stephen added.  “We sold to 224 countries last year, and I think that will continue to rise.”  Because of the overall popularity of the show, it is estimated to be one of their top profits in the next year due to the coming of the fourth season.  This consistent demand for the show has impacted how the directors and producers are affected positively in the entertainment business, and with more to come in the next season, the successes will only rise for BBC.     

                 

Works Cited

Barrett, Claer. "'Sherlock' a Big Winner for BBC's Finances." Financial Times. British

Broadcasting Corp, 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

"BBC - BBC Worldwide Delivers a Strong Performance in Spite of Currency Challenges - Media Centre." BBC News. BBC. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.

Sweney, Mark, and Tara Conlan. "BBC Worldwide Reports Record Underlying Profits." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 July 2011. Web. 21 Dec. 2016.

The Reason Behind the Assassination of the Headphone Jack

Samuel Ramlow

Mr. Reuter

The Reason Behind the Assassination of the Headphone Jack

Ever since the Iphone 7 was released, people have been questioning why Apple took away the headphone jack. One of the only practical reason people could come up with was, the cords from the headphones were annoying and got in the way (“Why”). While this is true, this is not the reason behind the disappearance of the headphone jack. Apple released a product that made the new “innovation” completely useless, and the new product made wired headphones eve more annoying. They released:

The top part plugs into the charging port and the bottom part is where the headphones plug in. Apple’s new genius innovation has forced consumers to choose between charging their phone and listen to music.

If we look back to the great year of 2014, Apple Inc made a very smart investment. The year 2014 was the year that Apple Inc BOUGHT Beats By Dre. Essentially meaning that Apple now owns that company and makes money from it just like any other owner of any company. Beats By Dre is a major supplier of headphones, and their company is affected by the release of Iphones. Beats Headphones and Iphones are complementary goods. Ever since the first wireless headphone was created, Beats By Dre has been a major supplier of wireless headphones. If more Beats wireless headphones are bought, apple makes more money. Which means if someone or some company were to invent something that increased the demand of wireless headphones, Apple would potentially make more money. In my opinion, Apple only created the IPhone 7 without a headphone jack to increase the demand for wireless headphones., The new supply of the IPhone 7 would increase sales for Wireless Beats, and therefore it would increase Apple Inc’s profit. I also believe that if this truly was Apple’s intentions, they succeeded. According to 9to5mac.com, in the month of June 2016 Wireless headphones sales surpassed wired headphones. While the IPhone 7 was released in September 2016, the rumors of the disappearance of the headphone jack started a little before June. While everyone has been questioning why the headphone jack was being taken away, Apple was making money off of the consumers who were now following trends and buying wireless headphones. There is no innovative reason behind the new IPhone 7, Apple just wanted to make more money with consumers thinking they were just trying to make a better IPhone.

Citations:

"Headphones, Earbuds, Speakers & Accessories." Beats By Dre. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Jan. 2017.

"Lightning to 3.5 mm Headphone Jack Adapter." Apple. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Jan. 2017.

"NPD: Wireless headphones exceed sales revenue of wired headphones for the month of June." 9to5Mac. N.p., 2016. Web. 02 Jan. 2017.

Quora. "Why Did Apple Remove The Headphone Jack From The iPhone 7?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 2016. Web. 02 Jan. 2017.