Demand For World Series Tickets

Demand For World Series Tickets
By: Paul Quartaroli

https://www.forbes.com/video/5183066238001/
The link above is a video that explains why the tickets for the Cubs World Series were so expensive in 2016. The video also explains why this game was such a big event and how it was  going to be history making for one team, the Chicago Cubs or the Cleveland Indians.

 2016 was the year for the Chicago Cubs. It had been 108 years since the Cubs won the World Series. It was viewed as one of the biggest droughts in baseball history. In reality, the Cubs are also one of the oldest baseball franchises in history. When the World Series came around the face value of game tickets were ranging from “Face value for tickets ranges from $450 for infield club boxes to $175 for upper-deck seats” (Clair). However, the secondary ticket market prices had a median price for a ticket at about “$3,550”(Clair). This is a crazy amount of money for a baseball game that you could watch on your T.V. at home for nothing but the cost of your time. The reason the price of the tickets was so high was directly related to the very high demand for Cubs fans to be part of the World Series experience, in person and a limited amount of seats to offer. As well as the fact that it had taken the Cubs 108 years to get there.

With an increased demand for tickets and a limited number of seats in the ballpark, it allowed suppliers to increase the cost of each ticket. The more excitement there was for the game the more Cubs fans would want to experience the excitement first hand, driving up the demand for tickets. As expected,  people from all over Chicago we're taking money from anywhere they would find just to get one ticket to see the Cubs compete in this historical game. After the first game of the World Series the ticket prices for “game four fell about 25 percent” as the Cubs lost the first game. After the Cubs won “game 2 the prices jumped 10 percent” (Clair). Again, supply and demand was at play. The more excitement and possibility the Cubs could win the World Series the higher the cost of the tickets rose.

It’s also important to note that attending a World Series game, at such inflated prices, is a want not a need. This means that consumer paid the high prices for the World Series ticket to be part of the excitement of watching the ball game in the ballpark not because they could not live without attending the game in person. It is safe to say that most every person that attended any of the World Series games and paid way over face value for their ticket did so due to their shear desire to be part of the experience not because they had to attend the game as a mean of survival. For me and most high school students, a luxury item like World Series tickets are completely out of my price range. Such an expense could only be viewed as a want.  Looking at my income, I do not make enough to support the price of the ticket. I would never pay “$175” to sit in seats that are so high up that people look like ants or even pay “$450” for tickets (Clair). I would much rather sit at home on a nice comfortable couch and watch the game on my T.V. and watch the Cubs WIN the World Series. Just because I didn’t spend the inflated amount of money for the World Series tickets, directly caused by supply and demand, didn’t change the fact that I witnessed the Cubs win, at home for free!

Works Cited 

Badenhausen, Kurt. “Forbes.” Chicago Cubs Ticket Prices At Wrigley More Than Double Previous World Series Record, 23 Oct. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/10/23/chicago-cubs-win-sets-stage-for-most-expensive-world-series-tickets-in-baseball-history/#7043a89676fb. 

Chi, Samuel. “Cubs Making World Series History . . . For Ticket Prices.” The Post Game, 27 Oct. 2016, http://www.thepostgame.com/cubs-world-series-tickets-most-expensive-history.

Clair, Stacy St. “Chicago Tribune.” Cubs World Series tickets prices could break record, 27 Oct. 2016, www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-cubs-ticket-prices-20161027-story.html.

Robots: Friend or Foe?

Robots: Friend or Foe?

By Sidney Keene

Friend or foe: a question more and more find themselves asking, as robotic technology and AI becomes more prevalent in our rapidly developing society. Thanks to famous films and novels that have theatricalized the development of robots, a more severe sense of paranoia has washed over the general public. Today, we have what some call a ‘robot economy’ as some of the biggest worldwide companies are opting to go automated, most notable being Amazon and Best Buy. There are both advantages and disadvantages of robots in our economy; and while there is no mass threat of unemployment right now, there could be in the near future.

Although widespread speculations have created doubt and uncertainty, robotic technology can have positive effects on the economy. One example of this being an increase in employment opportunities, which many people discount. With the creation of advanced technology comes, in turn, the increased demand for higher skill leveled workers, specifically in STEM. Afterall, somebody must program the machinery, and perform the tasks that are still too personalized or meticulous for a robot who can only perform menial tasks. Additionally, advances in technology should provide us with more resources that make the cost of living decrease. Similar to this, robotic equipment stimulates productivity growth, or the amount of output produced in a set period of time. Clearly, robots can finish duties more efficiently and with more precision than the typical human being. But to achieve maximum productivity is to obtain total factory productivity, “which comes from the synergies of labor and capital working together as efficiently as possible” (Investopedia). Increases in quality of labor come from a higher educated worker, who can add more value to production. Capital is the investment in machinery, such as robots or AI. When the two work together, they are creating efficiency, which, as a result, can create an increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the economy.

As mentioned above, robotic technology, or physical capital, can improve life for the consumer, and the economy as a whole. However, those who benefit the most from it are the individual firms using it in production. As we’ve studied in the factor demand market unit, a firm in perfect competition will continue to hire until their marginal revenue product (MRP) equals their marginal resource cost (MRC), and will keep hiring as long as MRP is greater than MRC. However, this is when the laborer is a human. The firm will still have to consider the fixed cost of obtaining the physical capital of robotic technology in the first place, however, it will not cost the firm annual salary costs. With robots, a firm doesn’t have to worry about a laborers allocation of leisure time or willingness to work. It can just purchase the amount of capital with total costs lower than marginal revenue. If you think about it, advanced technology can decrease the firm’s variable costs as well, as robots don’t need health benefits, vacation, or any other costly benefit that human workers receive. This technology can also help a firm maximize production by minimizing error. A human can create costly mistakes for a firm that can set them off track for a long time, while a robot won’t do this because it was made for the job and is extremely precise. Lastly, a robot will perform jobs too dangerous for human workers. This eliminates another cost of workers’ compensation that covers a laborer’s work related injury - a robot would not need this.

However, while there are advantages, there are also negative effects on our economy - one of the most prevalent being the elimination of jobs. In short, robots are completing tasks that were primarily intended for humans. An example of this, is manufacturing work in factories. A study composed in 1990 through 2007 by the National Bureau of Of Economic Research, found that the number of jobs lost to robots “[ranged] between 360,000 and 670,000 jobs, equivalent to a 0.18- 0.34 percentage point” (“Robots and Jobs”). This number, since 2007, has only been exponentially growing as technology continues to advance and “By the year 2020, an estimated 5 million jobs are predicted to be replaced by machines” (“How Robots Could Destroy Our Economy”). This is all due to what was mentioned above, that robots can increase productivity and decrease costs. Henceforth, firms will opt to ‘hire’ the machinery over human beings.

So, how much is your job at risk? This depends on your profession. If you work with a lower skill set that includes repetition or sorting, the odds of the job becoming automated are very high. Jobs that require only as much as a high school diploma are at extreme risk, for example, a cashier, toll booth worker, truck driver, or fast food worker. However, low risk jobs include physicians, teachers, songwriters, or cosmetologists, as these jobs require a more personalized, human touch. 

In conclusion, it is inevitable that robots and AI are rapidly joining the workforce and will take away jobs from humans who are perfectly able to perform them. Robots can both be advantageous for an individual firm and threatening to a human laborer. However, it is important to remain calm in a time of such revolutionary change. If you get a higher level of education, you can aquire a higher skill level job, and the odds of a robot taking over are much lower.

Works Cited

 “Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets.” Acemoglu, et al. NBER, NBER, 23 Mar. 2017, www.nber.org/papers/w23285.

“3 Ways Robots Affect the Economy.” Anthony, Craig.  Investopedia, Investopedia, 8 Oct. 2018, www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/091316/3-ways-robots-affect-economy.asp.

“How Robots Could Destroy Our Economy - And How They Could Save It.” DeMers, Jayson. The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Oct. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/jayson-demers/how-robots-could-destroy-_b_12411008.html.

Today. “Robots: Is Your Job at Risk?” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2017/09/15/technology/jobs-robots/index.html?iid=EL.

Trains and Railroads

Eric Roos

Trains. Most think of them as a nuisance because their loud but without them this world would be way different. Every single industry in the country has to use the railways to transport goods. Some people can indicate the growing of the economy from trains. Over the past couple years trains have been getting longer and longer due to more manufactures in America that affects the GDP and imports. The most common type is mixed fright. This consists of grain, oil, ethanol, scrap metal, and so much more. There are thousands of companies but they are split up into classes based on how many miles of rail they have. Class ones are the bigger companies like Canadian Pacific, Canadian National, Norfolk Southern, CSX, Kansas City Southern, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. There are many class twos but one major one is Wisconsin and Southern. All of those are multi-million corporations or fortune 500 companies. They are well paid and have good benefits for their employees. If we go back to when the frac sand was booming because of the oil findings out west they relied on tail too transport the frac sand and oil. Wisconsin being the powerhouse of a frac sand producers they benefited big time. Wisconsin railroads shipped about 105 million pounds of frac sand to the oil rigs all over America but mainly in the west. They also haul about 30 tons of frac sand a year on average.

Now if we look at it on the other side of the spectrum with intermodal loads they have been skyrocketing. The week of December 1st 2018 there were 382,810 intermodal units that were transported by rail throughout all of the United States. That number went up about 1% compared to last year. Canadian Pacific Railway’s intermodal traffic went up about 3% in the last week of December from last year on the same day. Canadian Pacific just recently signed a contract with Ocean Network Express (ONE). This signing boosted Canadian Pacific’s Intermodal traffic by 2%. Every class one railroad has seen a huge boost in intermodal traffic within the last week of 2018 but mainly Canadian Pacific and Canadian National benefited the best.


The most valuable type of loads are manifests. They consist of anything and everything you can think of. They ship food, oil, ethanol, grain, molten sulfur, and scrap metal. There are a lot of businesses that does things by rail. Mainly food companies transport by rail because it’s the fastest of all ways to get food from point A to point B and also the safest way too because one freight car can take 300 semi trucks off the American highways which decreases the risk for accidents and the pollution from the emissions. Sure the trains can derail, hit cars, and run into each other but the chances of that happening are slim to none because of the system the locomotives are programed with. Manifests carry millions of dollars worth of goods for multiple consumers all over the world. In the picture we see a Wisconsin and Southern manifest head towards Janesville, WI passing a grain elevator. This grain elevator is how farmers get grain to train cars.



As the United States imported more goods the rail traffic would benefit a lot. Throughout the years the United States imported a lot of things Oil, food, cars, and domestic goods just naming a few. Your brand new airpods for your Iphone XR were most likely shipped by ship, rail, and a truck. Everything you have is either shipped by one on them. They are the blood lines of any country because without those methods then the country would be in a bad state for transportation of goods. Every single American state has some sort of railway in it. Weather it’s a class one, class two, or a short line they are everywhere. They all serve the same purpose but ones are more busy than others.




Works Cited
Market Realist, marketrealist.com/2019/01/strong-carload-growth-drove-canadian-pacifics-rail-traffic.

Hubbuch, Chris. “Wisconsin Frac Sand Producers Seek Relief from Rail Costs, Service Issues.” La Crosse Tribune, La Crosse Tribune, 30 July 2018, lacrossetribune.com/news/local/wisconsin-frac-sand-producers-seek-relief-from-rail-costs-service/article_5bcb464e-2dd9-5ecf-9824-09cc24b1c7e7.html.

“Rail Traffic for November and the Week Ending December 1, 2018.” Association of American Railroads, www.aar.org/news/rail-traffic-for-november-and-the-week-ending-december-1-2018/.

Government Shutdown is worse than we thought

Megan Loth
B1 Economics
Mr. Reuter

Government shutdown is worse than we thought

I’m not sure how many high schoolers actually keep up with politics and the American government--I know I don’t really pay much attention to it. However it’s pretty hard to miss the current government shutdown that our country is experiencing. So you might be wondering, what does it mean when the government is shutdown? Basically it occurs whenever Congress fails to appropriate funds for the next fiscal year. If this is the case, Congress would enact a continuing funds resolution. However if they cannot agree on anything, it leads to a shutdown. Currently the government has been shutdown for about four weeks. So what does this mean for our country’s economy?

Whenever the government goes into a shutdown, often times they stop paying many government workers. In some cases these workers are just sent home, and other times they are expected to continue working without compensation. According to “The Balance”, about 380,000 non-critical government workers are currently not getting paid. These employees also act as consumers in our country’s economy. Therefore if they aren’t getting paid, then they will obviously be less inclined to spend their money on anything besides necessities which might slow the economy.

Another industry in which you can really see the effects of the shutdown, is air travel. All of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) screeners, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) agents, and all the other air traffic control employees are government workers. Most of these people are continuing to work even without pay, considering without them, there would be no (safe) air travel. There aren’t many controllers as it is, plus according to the president of the air-traffic controllers union, many workers are at the age of retirement. So this government shutdown that is forcing some people to be sent home or work without pay is a pressing issue. Although, because of this unfair situation, the government workers employed by airports across the country have filed a lawsuit that asks to be reimbursed for all of their time spent working without wages. This also means more money that the government has to put money aside so that they can pay these workers.

There are also workers in the agricultural field that are currently on furlough. Unfortunately this means that all of the farmers cannot get their loans processed and (on the more extreme side) if the government shutdown continues, food stamps for the month of February may be cut. This would be a major issue as the effect of no food stamps would spread far and wide throughout the country. Because the government is shutdown, it is now up to the states to fund the food stamps program. The concern is that they might not have enough money in their budgets to keep up with the increasing demand, seeing as how close to a million federal workers are not being compensated. Worrying about how to fund federal government programs messes up the economic flow for individual states, leading to the country as a whole.

These are just a few examples of all the effects that this government shutdown has on our country and the people living in it. As far as economics go, “After the first two weeks, the shutdown began affecting economic growth. S&P Global Ratings estimated it cost $1.2 billion for every week the government is closed. Government spending is itself a component of gross domestic product. It contributes 18 percent of economic output,” (The Balance). For as little as I might’ve cared about it before considering I’m an absent-minded teenager, this shutdown is a big deal and has many more lasting effects on our economy and on American citizens than I would’ve imagined.




Works Cited
Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why the Government Shut Down and What Happens Next.” The Balance Small Business, The Balance, www.thebalance.com/government-shutdown-3305683.

Lane, Lea. “Updates On Air-Travel Delays Created By The U.S. Government Shutdown, And How To Deal With Them.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 16 Jan. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/01/14/update-on-air-travel-delays-created-by-the-u-s-government-shutdown-and-how-to-deal-with-them/#510eae4616f6.

Page, Susan. “Five Ways the Government Shutdown Could End – and Why They Probably Won't Happen.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 14 Jan. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/14/government-shutdown-how-will-it-end/2565793002/.

Paletta, Damian, and Erica Werner. “Millions Face Delayed Tax Refunds, Cuts to Food Stamps as White House Scrambles to Deal with Shutdown's Consequences.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 4 Jan. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/millions-face-delayed-tax-refunds-cuts-to-food-aid-as-white-house-scrambles-to-deal-with-shutdown/2019/01/04/b5b58616-0fa3-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ee237fb6bb5b.

[]. “If Shutdown Persists, Can States Fund Food Stamps and Welfare on Their Own?” Governing Magazine: State and Local Government News for America's Leaders, Governing, www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-federal-government-shutdown-states-safety-net.html.

The Zlatan Effect

The Zlatan Effect
Lukas Zabel
1/15/19

What happens when a superstar across 3 different leagues comes to the MLS(a professional soccer league in America)? Zlatan Ibrahimovic has won 13 player of the year awards, and 5 top goal scorer across all five of Europe's top five leagues, and believe it or not there are 55 other awards and titles he's won. On top of that a sensational goal on his debut, after getting subbed on in the second half, with a goal from 40 yards out to put LA Galaxy ahead. So what effect does he have on America and especially in LA?


After being the MLS for one year, Zlatan is the highest selling jersey in the MLS, after a great first season with LA Galaxy with 22 goals and 10 assists in 26 games. Within his first week of being with LA Galaxy over 10,000 jerseys have sold(Cornerofthegalaxy). This means that he truly means something to the city of Los Angeles. Supply and demand are important for LA Galaxy, and other businesses selling his jersey. In the MLS he has had the greatest impact since David Beckham in 2006. Since he has had 22 goals in 26 games, consumers want his jersey, and there is a high demand for his jersey, businesses will leave supply the same, or increase it based on the demand, but since the demand for his jersey is so high right now businesses can afford raising the prices, and consumers will still buy his jersey.

Not only does the jersey revenue impact LA, but there has been an increase in attendance, and tourism at a Stubhub Center. Attendance before Zlatan averaged just under 16,000 people, and with his arrival it averages over 30,000 people (Chase).Since the arrival of Zlatan he’s brought much tourism into LA, increase overall revenue and money circulation in LA.


Works Cited

Chase, Sean. “Revs Have Huge Opportunity Against Galaxy.” The Bent Musket, The Bent Musket, 14 July 2018, www.thebentmusket.com/2018/7/14/17570352/revs-have-huge-opportunity-against-galaxy.

Selling Jerseys.” Major League Soccer, 22 Oct. 2018, www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/10/22/major-league-soccer-unveils-2018-top-selling-jerseys.

Panizo, Franco. “The Zlatan Effect: Ibrahimović Draws Worldwide Attention to MLS, Resurrects Galaxy.” Pro Soccer USA, 2 Apr. 2018, www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/the-zlatan-effect-ibrahimovic-draws-worldwide-attention-to-mls-resurrects-galaxy/.

Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid?

Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid?
By: Thales Andrade 11/14/2019

Universities and colleges throughout the whole country receive millionaire revenue yearly on account of their athletics programs. Most of this revenue returns toward the school, their specific athletic programs, or even the coaches of those programs, but none of it goes to the athletes. Some of the highest money-earning schools such as Alabama, arguably the biggest college football program, earn above the $20 million range. Sticking to Alabama as an example, one could say that these high levels of income come from broadcasting rights deals, ticket sales, sponsorships, among other things. Most recently, the NCAA sold the broadcasting rights of March Madness from 2011 to 2024 to CBS/Turner Sports for $11 billion. All these money-making techniques are a direct cause of the University being able to entertain their fans and watchers with high-performing star athletes. Fans attend events, sponsors companies propose contracts, and television companies buy broadcasting rights due to the top-notch entertainment provided by the ones on the playing environment.

All athletes who play at a collegiate level have the dream of one day reaching the professional level and get paid. Around 2% of athletes who play a college sport end up playing in a professional team. In numerous cases, athletes with talent that belongs to the big-leagues have their careers ended by an injury representing paylessly their university. Their dreams of supporting themselves while doing something they love are ruined, and they likely have a small amount of money to support themselves. If they were to have been paid while playing, they could have something to help support themselves without their scholarship, which was likely taken away due to them not being able to play. Not only does paying players create financial security, it develops a sense of financial awareness that many were never thought. The lack of this is shown by professional athletes who go bankrupt a few years after being retired, and could be avoided by earlier payments to develop the sense of how to spend money properly.

Some may argue that college athletes already do get paid in form of financially assisted education that otherwise they may not be able to afford, but this isn’t always true, as only 59% of Division I athletes play under a scholarship. Others argue that college athletes signing contracts worth money would lead them to disregard the educational part, and commit to schools who offer the highest amount of money. While this may be true it is widely known, but almost never proven, that the top athletes receive financial benefits from picking some school over others.

Work Cited

Recruiting Facts. NCAA, Mar. 2018, www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.pdf.

Patterson, Tiffany. “Should College Athletes Be Paid?” SmartAsset, SmartAsset, 20 Sept. 2018, smartasset.com/retirement/should-student-athletes-be-paid.

Carden, Art. “College Athletes Are Worth Millions. They Should Be Paid Like It.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 26 July 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2018/07/26/ college-athletes-are-worth-millions-they-should-be-paid-like-it/#2e8c45da452e.

Martinez, Madisen. “Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? Both Sides of the Debate.” CollegeXpress, www.collegexpress.com/articles-and-advice/athletics/blog/should -college-student-athletes-be-paid-both-sides-debate/.

Super Bowl Tickets: Elastic or Inelastic?

Super Bowl Tickets: Elastic or Inelastic?
By Elliot Mueller

The super bowl has consistently been the most popular sporting event in America. In 2018 super bowl LII between the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles reached 103.4 million viewers. While down 7% from the previous year which totalled 111.3 million viewers, 103.4 million viewers is still very dominant. To put that number into perspective many major sporting events come nowhere near the numbers that the super bowl reaches. The Masters Tournament reached 13 million viewers, the 2018 World Series posted a measly 14.3 million viewers, and the Kentucky Derby put up 15.5 million viewers.

With these insane viewing statistics for the super bowl, one might ask “how great is the demand for this event?”. This topic interested me because I began to wonder how much would someone be willing to pay to attend this once in a lifetime event? The simple answer I found was nearly any price.







According to Forbes super bowl XLVIII was “A Lesson in Demand Elasticity”. The 2012-13 season’s super bowl XLVII was hosted in New Orleans, in the Superdome. The game between the Ravens and 49ers was a tight one, ending in a 34-31 Ravens victory. The following 2013-14 season’s super bowl XLVII, held in Metlife Stadium, New Jersey, was between the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos. The game ended 43-8 as the Seahawks trounced the Broncos. Although seemingly similar, there was a huge difference between these two super bowls: the ticket prices. In super bowl XLVII Club-Level Seats (the best available seats) cost 1,250 dollars. The next level down offered in super bowl XLVII were 950 dollars. While both ticket options seem very expensive they are pretty cheap when compared to the pricy tickets of super bowl XLVIII. The following season saw the super bowl ticket prices rise drastically. The highest level seating cost 2,600 dollars and the next level down was 1,500 dollars. Both of these prices were large increases, but the interesting part is that attendance levels actually rose. Super bowl XLVII had 71,024 attendees but the following year the super bowl reached 82,529 fans in attendance. While both games were sellouts, the fact that fans weren’t scared off by these higher prices is extremely interesting. A few years after these two super bowls were played ticket prices have continued to rise. The 2017-18 season’s super bowl LII between the Philadelphia Eagles and New England Patriots reached all new ticket price heights. The average ticket cost 4,314 dollars. But the attendance was not brought down, with the event selling out once again.

In conclusion fans will pay nearly anything for super bowl tickets, therefore they are extremely inelastic.

Works Cited

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/09/19/super-bowl-xlviii-pricing-a-lesson-in-demand-elasticity/#57a2c098796f (wouldn’t correctly cite)

“Super Bowl Attendance By The Numbers.” SportingCharts.com, www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nfl/super-bowl-attendance-by-the-numbers.aspx.

The Economics of YouTube's Adpocalypse

Written by: Matt Trotier

It goes without saying that YouTube is having an identity crisis at the moment. Eschewing certain creators for being too controversial while aligning itself with political view-spewing late night talk show hosts and a vlogger filming dead bodies, the assumedly profitless Alphabet Inc. subsidiary has found itself struggling to hit its stride even at its perceived height in the early 2010s as a haven for content in a variety of forms. With the platform as the primary source of entertainment for Generation Z as polled by television network Awesomeness, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and perhaps even you are likely concerned for the future of the site, the former mainly to maintain her salary and the rest of us to avoid boredom when there are no more Snapchat stories to swipe through. With that concern, one has to wonder how the platform got here, and if any of its woes can be explained by economics.

YouTube is no stranger to life threatening crises. The years in between 2007 and 2010 saw YouTube nearly shut down in the excitingly dramatic case of Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., where the court ruled in Google’s favor because Viacom was proven to have leaked and pirated their own works prior to their release in a guerilla marketing campaign in a case where they were suing YouTube for allowing piracy to occur. Other things have swept at the now media juggernaut left and right, harming its reputation and threatening to end its supremacy in original online content distribution for years with none-succeeding, but 2017 saw a more serious attempt at the website’s content creators who sustain it more direct than ever before. Following the still dominant YouTuber PewDiePie’s multiple controversial actions regarding certain topics that are not exactly things you’d include in a High School Econ Class’s blog, the Wall Street Journal, the Verge and its parent Vox, and other reputable news organizations were quick to report on the again breaking story of YouTube’s downfall. Whether or not you agree with their articles is irrelevant as the damage caused by them has already been done to those making videos. With a number of notable advertisers like GM, Amazon and Coca-Cola boycotting the site to avoid being associated with those responsible for such actions, YouTube losing a few more customers was obviously a preferable opportunity cost in not running ads when compared to having your company branded as a supporter of extremist beliefs. In a trend of changes implemented by YouTube that hurt the backbones of its community, YouTube would deal a near fatal blow to them through the automatic demonetization of videos that even reference topics deemed controversial by the site’s machine learning based algorithm, all the while partnering with a new generation of social media stars arriving from Instagram and the then recently killed-off Vine, Celebrities like Dwayne ‘the Rock’ Johnson and Will Smith, other online empires like Buzzfeed and CollegeHumor, and conventional TV networks to promise advertisers that it wouldn’t happen again and that there would still be plenty of rabid young consumers ready to be reached by companies’ ads and to buy their products. With YouTube actively promoting these channel’s content, their demand for their service may have been diminished with a departure of some of the site’s most loyal fans, but the continuous influx of new consumers with plenty of younger viewers getting phones and tablets capable of browsing YouTube and with emerging markets not having exposure to the site’s previous state.

In light of this, numerous creators tried and true in popularity openly expressed their frustration with the company that allowed their successes in an attempt to make a change. With the site acting as what is essentially a monopolistically competitive market, creators have to work hard to differentiate themselves form each other in an attempt to attract fans, with YouTube’s active manipulation of video outreach acting as an anticompetitive force for the aforementioned channels winning their favor. However, like something experiencing diminishing returns, creators who attempted to do something about this were usually only hurt more. Notably advertiser friendly and school favorite content creators John and Hank Green of vlogbrothers and Crash Course fame had their videos addressing historical topics demonetized as YouTube’s moderation algorithm again sought to rid from notability any videos remotely controversial. Most recently, YouTuber Mumkey Jones, a fairly popular creator on the site, had his channel completely terminated by YouTube’s algorithm. While the reasons for it are understandable given his content was centered around exposing and satricially ridiculing the perpetrator of a highly tragic event that I won’t mention here, the fact that the channel was entirely taken down by YouTube’s AI is indicative of the reality that YouTube doesn’t actually care about those using their site, but merely being able to keep itself afloat.
While many viewers and YouTubers alike may call YouTube’s intense and careless policing of content a violation of free speech, it’s important to remember that YouTube is a corporation, one who’s parent company’s shareholders do not care or even know about what happens on the site apart from what the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post report on, and one that, like any rational actor in an economy, wants to make a profit. It doesn’t exist for the creators or the viewers, but instead for the advertisers who sustain it and are the only worthwhile reason Alphabet likely keeps the site running.

Works Cited

Asarch, Steven. "Creators with Controversial Content Struggle to Survive on YouTube." Newsweek, 19 Dec. 2018, www.newsweek.com/youtube-censorship-bots-mumkey-jones-algorithm-1265776.
Awesomeness, Multiple. "Gen Z: The Audience You Can't Ignore." Awesomeness, Awesomeness TV Network, May 2017, awesomenesstvnetwork.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/awesomeness_report_final1.pdf.

Docket Alarm, Inc. "Viacom International, Inc. Et Al V. Youtube, Inc. Et Al, 1:07-cv-02103 (S.D.N.Y.) Via Docket Alarm." Docket Alarm, www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--07-cv-02103/Viacom_International_Inc._et_al_v._Youtube_Inc._et_al/.

Levine, Zahavah. "Broadcast Yourself." Official YouTube Blog, YouTube, youtube.googleblog.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html.

Rolfe Winkler, Jack Nicas and Ben Fritz. "Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts." WSJ, The Wall Street Journal, 14 Feb. 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube-star-pewdiepie-after-anti-semitic-posts-1487034533.

Sherman, Erik. "4 Reasons YouTube Still Doesn't Make a Profit." Live, Breaking News Today: Latest National Headlines, World News and More from CBSNews.com and Watch the CBSN Live News Stream 24x7, 27 May 2015, www.cbsnews.com/news/4-reasons-youtube-still-doesnt-make-a-profit/.

Statt, Nick. "YouTube is Facing a Full-scale Advertising Boycott over Hate Speech." The Verge, Vox Media, 24 Mar. 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech.

Vlogbrothers. "35 Minutes on YouTube Demonetization." YouTube, vlogbrothers, 6 Oct. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouMeAaAWUEg.

Wikimedia Foundation, Multiple. "Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc.

Mega Man

Sam Tackett

Mega Man has been one of the most widely-recognized video game series out there. Starting back in the 80’s on the NES, the series has spawned numerous spin-offs, merchandise, and even made its way into Super Smash Bros. But up until last year, there’s been a startling lack of Mega Man games from its own company, Capcom. While there are several different reasons for this, the one that makes sense to tie to economics for the sake of this blog post is the idea behind supply and demand.

Look at this graph I made. In the 10 years between 2000 and 2010, more and more Mega Man games were being produced, mostly spin-off titles and subseries. With most video game series, there’s one or two games released in a year, maybe three if you’re lucky. In 2004, the collective amount of Mega Man games released was freakin’ 13. And they didn’t even break 1 million sales total. Things got even worse in 2006, with 9 games released, and only about 500,000 games sold. Mega Man X8. Mega Man Starforce 1 and 2. Mega Man Zero 2 and 3. Mega Man” Powered Up. Mega Man Battle Network 4, 4.5, and 5. This is just the tip of the iceberg of games that were released. In general, releasing that many games in a year isn’t a good thing, but the games themselves didn’t help.

Now, it’s not that the games were bad. Far from it, in fact. But it was instead in how they were designed. The Mega Man series is very formulaic in how the games work. Jump and shoot. Fight evil robots. Get their powers. Rinse and repeat with different art styles ,characters, and mechanics. While the games were oftentimes very good, the consumers who bought the games ended up only getting a couple. After all, once you’ve played one, you’ve played them all, right? (Actually this is very wrong but that’s a discussion for another day. Let’s just say all the games have wildly different stories, levels, bosses, etc. I could rant about this for hours). The point is, people were getting tired of Mega Man. So, what happened next?

https://imgur.com/a/GV9nN10

Nothing.

There were a few projects planned, notably Mega Man Legends 3 and Mega Man Universe, but none of them came to fruition. For 8 looooong years, Capcom gave Mega Man fans nothing. In 2013, Mega Man got the honor of being a playable character in the 4th installment of the Super Smash Bros. series, where he utilized his classic weaponry, but there was still nothing from his official company, apart from a few collections of older games released on new hardware in the form of the Mega Man Legacy Collections. With no one else left to turn to, the fans took it upon themselves to satisfy their demand for more Mega Man in the form of fangames.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BpCarkGGoxI/maxresdefault.jpg

It’s ironic in a way. As Capcom released a massive amount of games (increasing supply), the demand for the games suffered drastically. Only once games stopped is when people wanted more Mega Man. While we eventually got an actual, new game in 2018, that being Mega Man 11, it’s tough to ignore the near-decade hiatus fans got.

https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Mega-Man-11_20180921202415.jpg?fit=400%2C225&strip=all


Works Cited
Fletcher, JC. “Capcom Europe: Mega Man Legends 3 Canceled Due to Lack of Devroom Participation.” Engadget, 14 July 2016, www.engadget.com/2011/07/21/capcom-europe-mega-man-legends-3-canceled-due-to-lack-of-devroo/.

“List of Mega Man Video Games.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Nov. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mega_Man_video_games.

“Why Does Capcom Hate Mega Man?” Destructoid, Destructoid, www.destructoid.com/why-does-capcom-hate-mega-man--251468.phtml.

Gucci: Is it Overpriced?

Gucci - Are Their Products Overpriced?
Kylie Seeberger

Have you ever had a shirt that had a seam come out? That’s because of the poor quality. The production of regular everyday clothing is not the best quality. Gucci products are made in Europe, and the workers are paid much more than the workers in China, Bangladesh, etc. These products are made to be the highest quality possible. They have better materials (such as pima cotton), better workmanship, as well as better work conditions. Buying Gucci products isn’t just a purchase, it’s an investment. If you buy a button-up shirt from Walmart, it probably isn’t going to last you a year without having any rips or tears in it, causing you to either look unprofessional, or having you buy a new one. Because of the high quality of Gucci products, as long as you take care if them, they’ll stay in good condition for quite a long time.

All expensive companies are known because of their ads being everywhere. And of course that costs money. That’s where most buyers’ money goes. By buying from Gucci, you are helping the company expand.


The less of something there is, the more valuable it becomes. Back in 2008, it was a big deal to have an iPhone. Now, if you see someone with an iPhone, you don’t think twice about it. That’s because in April of 2018, 82% of teenagers had iPhones (Teens Use an IPhone - And It’s Growing). If everyone was wearing products from Gucci, it wouldn’t be a big deal. To prevent that from happening, Gucci made their products much more expensive. Of course you’re paying for a single thing for more than it’s worth, but you won’t see anyone else with that same exact shirt around here.

At a net worth of $50 million, Jeffree Star is one of Gucci’s most frequent buyers. Jeffree had stated that he has a ‘closet where Gucci goes to die’. “It has a lot of Gucci that came out last year. I usually wear it once for a tutorial, then put it in here” (27 Of the Most Shocking Things We Learnt about Jeffree Star). Jeffree has spent about $2 million on products from Gucci. Due to the fact that Gucci is so expensive, rich people tend to buy from it. It is also very rare to see Gucci products on people who aren’t celebrities. Since celebrities do show off their Gucci clothes, it gets more people to buy them, earning them more money.


“Why Can Gucci and Top Luxury Brands Sell a Shirt for so Much? Is It the Quality? How Are Polo and Gucci Shirts Different and How Do They Sell Higher?” What Happens to the Planets When a Star Dies? - Quora, www.quora.com/Why-can-Gucci-and-top-luxury-brands-sell-a-shirt-for-so-much-Is-it-the-quality-How-are-Polo-and-Gucci-shirts-different-and-how-do-they-sell-higher.

Looper, Christian de. “82 Percent of U.S. Teens Use an IPhone -- And It's Growing.” Digital Trends, Digital Trends, 10 Apr. 2018, www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/iphone-use-teens-2018/.

Capon, Laura. “27 Of the Most Shocking Things We Learnt about Jeffree Star from Shane Dawson's YouTube Documentary.” Cosmopolitan, Cosmopolitan, 24 Aug. 2018, www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/beauty-hair/celebrity-hair-makeup/a22621818/jeffree-star-shane-dawson-you-tube-documentary/.

Are the Government Systems in Place Effectively Guiding Auto Companies Towards Improving Fuel Efficiency?

Are the Government Systems in Place Effectively Guiding Auto Companies Towards Improving  Fuel Efficiency?

Written By: Maya Flynn


The primary question that economists discuss in terms of government intervention to market failure, is how much should be done to change the system? In some cases the government uses too strong of regulations or not enough that prevents the market to reach the socially optimal point accounting for social costs. A recent example of this can be seen in the opposing viewpoints of the Obama and Trump administrations on the CAFE regulations.

CAFE represents corporate average fuel economy, in other words the average gas mileage a certain company's cars have derived from each separate car that they have sold. These regulations were put in place in 1975 in response to the Arab oil embargo to attempt to lower gas usage and importations. As time went on, the embargo was kept in place due to environmental concerns and the incentive for better technology.

Companies that don’t meet the CAFE requirements are faced with penalty fines, while companies whose cars use less gas get carbon credits. The system allows for carbon credits to be used to negate fines. This gives opportunities for fuel efficent companies to advance because carbon credits, which can be sold to other companies, negate the penalty fines. Companies such as Tesla earn many carbon credits and sell them to companies that would otherwise have to pay fines. This helps the market overall, because instead of losing the penalty money to the government the money is going towards fuel efficent companies that are doing research and developing better technology. The video below explains more in depth about the CAFE system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLtFPPxstiHw-BowHSOJRcSpyDwpZi9Z5s&v=oW-QH98MId8


Without this system, there would not only lack an incentive for better fuel economy, but additionally a lack of money to put towards new technology. As shown in the graph, since the programs started the fuel efficiency has increased drastically and is projected to continue for 2020.

During the Obama administration a plan was put in place to advance the requirements and make strides to increase fuel economy. The goal was to reach 54.5 mpg by 2025. After the plan was put in place, individual car manufacturers had to figure out separately how they would reach the requirements or pay for the penalties. This is a time consuming and costly process including changing entire production lines, and replacing and redesigning parts of the engine and vehicle. The idea was that spending this money would be worth it in the long run and also, would be supplemented by carbon credits.

This was all disrupted when the Trump administration took over, because they proposed a rollback, which would cancel the requirements for 2025 and also make impossible for individual states to create their own requirements. The state of California which currently has strong state based requirements announced that they would sue the government if this was put in place. The Trump plan has since been modified and hasn’t been passed yet. With the midterm elections leaning democratic, it is unlikely that any changes weakening Obama’s requirements will pass.

The remaining arguments lie in the set up of the program, because it encourages companies to sell smaller cars which are also often imported. This is a problem because smaller cars are more dangerous when involved in accidents, with a much higher risk for injury or fatality. While the CAFE has been effective, the question remains if the program is the best possible way to account for the social cost of oil emissions and balance the market.

Works Cited

Abuelsamid, Sam. “New Vehicles Keep Getting Heavier - Or Are They?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 Jan. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2019/01/03/new-vehicles-keep-getting-heavier-or-are-they/#2c0c29bf4518.

Carty, Sharon Silke. “54.5 Mpg Target Is off the Table, U.S. Regulators Say.” Automotive News, 18 July 2016, www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM/160719863/54-5-mpg-target-is-off-the-table-u-s-regulators-say.

Davenport, Coral. “Trump Administration Unveils Its Plan to Relax Car Pollution Rules.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-auto-emissions-california.html.

Geuss, Megan. “Eleven Researchers Publish Sharp Critique of EPA Fuel Economy Logic.” Ars Technica, Ars Technica, 9 Dec. 2018, arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/science-trump-admin-report-justifying-fuel-economy-rollback-is-flawed/.

Hyatt, Kyle. “2019 Chevy Silverado Gets Worse Gas Mileage than the Truck It Replaces.” CNET, CNET, 9 Dec. 2018, www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-fuel-economy/.

Putre, Laura. “Rough Roads: Will Political Uncertainty Slow Automotive Innovation?” IndustryWeek, 12 Dec. 2018, www.industryweek.com/leadership/rough-roads-will-political-uncertainty-slow-automotive-innovation.

“Read ‘Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles’ at NAP.edu.” National Academies Press: OpenBook, www.nap.edu/read/21744/chapter/10.

Mr. Clifford- How Can He Stay in Business with Free Riders?

Mr. Clifford- How Can He Stay in Business with Free Riders?
Written By: Kasey Schlicht

I’m sure many of you have taken advantage of the wondrous and life saving resource that holds the name of Mr. Clifford, a well known YouTuber that teaches numerous different lessons on Economics. While he used to make a living by teaching Economics at a high school, he decided to quit and become a full time YouTuber and try to make a profit through creating videos and selling his Ultimate Review Packet. While the majority of his videos act as a public service for all to view, with the purchase of his review packet you are provided with extra resources such as more videos, practice problems, and worksheets. Therefore, since you have to pay for this extra service and goods that come along with it, you might think that it  would classify as a private good; however, since this is nonexcludable, due to the fact that Mr. Clifford cannot prevent people from sharing his links and packet, and that it is nonrival in consumption, his service and goods are in fact public. Some may ask, if anyone can share Mr. Clifford’s content without paying, how is he stilling earning a profit?

While Mr. Clifford cannot get the government involved in order to prevent free riders, there are other measures he takes to ensure he makes the largest profit possible. One of the main things Mr. Clifford does, is appeal to people’s altruism. For example, he puts up different sayings on his different worksheets, video descriptions, video scripts, and much more, saying that if you are sharing these goods then you are “a total jerk” or “not cool.” Something Mr. Clifford could possibly do in the future to make sure there are no more free riders, is create individualized accounts for those who purchase his Ultimate Review Guide, which would then require a login username and password that would be created upon purchase. This would help him turn his public service into a private service and maximize his profit.

While Mr. Clifford’s service and goods are currently doing well, I’m sure a couple of you are either free riders or know of some to his very own service, which prove that the number of users without paying will only rise as his goods do. If he reaches a point where he attempted to turn his service and goods private, or even asked for donations from the viewers, and he begins to have a negative profit, then Mr. Clifford may not even provide videos and packets at all, harming both his lifestyle as well as his viewers. This is a prime example of how free riders can cause economic inefficiency and overall market failure, as Mr. Clifford would have to shut down his service if the problem caused him to greatly decrease profit and ultimately lose money.

Free riding occurs more often than one might think, as I’m sure you can think back to your day today and identify plentiful amounts of things you did, took advantage of, and didn’t have to pay for. While these type of harmless free riding are fine to do, such as stealing a couple bites of your friend’s sandwich you didn’t pay for or watching a show with a friend on their Netflix account you didn’t buy, just think about the consequences to a seller (possibly shutting down from negative profit) when you’re trying to sneak into a paid event or even ask someone else for Mr. Clifford’s Ultimate Review Guide…


If you want to learn more about public goods and free riding from our good pal himself, Mr. Clifford, check out this video! Don’t worry, this video is a public good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsWuzS_dEM8



Works Cited
Clifford, Jacob. “Public Goods and Free Riders- Micro 6.1.” YouTube, YouTube, 11 Nov. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsWuzS_dEM8.
“Free Rider Problem.” Intelligent Economist, Intelligent Economist, 18 May 2018, www.intelligenteconomist.com/free-rider-problem/.
Pettinger, Tejvan. “Free Rider Problem.” Economics Help, www.economicshelp.org/blog/1626/economics/free-rider-problem/.

Railways, a Lesson in Market Failure

Railways, a Lesson in Market Failure
Benjamin Bucheger

Privatisation of British Rail refers to the period between 1994 and 1997 when the majority of the state owned and operated company British Railways was transferred into private hands. The Railways Act 1993, passed in British Parliament on November 5th, legislated the breaking up and selling off of the operations of the British Railways Board, the body which oversaw British Railways, with various regulatory functions transferred to the newly created office of the Rail Regulator. This came on the heels of the era of former US president Ronald Reagan and former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the legislation being passed under her successor John Major, culminating from a general shift in political and public discourse towards privatisation and individualism. The idea behind privatization was that the privatized industry would bring about a reduced cost to the taxpayer, lower fares, improved customer service and more investment. These goals follow the idea of free market competition, that many firms competing in a large market drives down prices and increases efficiency. To put it another way, turn British Railways into a monopolistically competitive market where every firm provides basically the same service with small variations between them. As you can probably guess by the title, the vision turned out much different from the reality.

A quick note: For this article I will not be focusing on customer service as that is not an issue particular to economics (at least not the ones I’d like to highlight in this piece).

First let’s start with how the private rail system works in the UK. A fun fact: trains in the UK are not owned by the companies that operate the trains. Instead the trains are owned by Rolling Stock Operating Companies (ROSCOs) who lease the coaches, locomotives and freight wagons that run on the tracks to train operating companies (TOCs). The TOCs then apply for franchises from the Department of Transportation to run specific routes of track for a certain period of time. During this time the TOC operates the route exclusively. This type of track franchising was implemented to avoid the obvious problem of competing firms popping a train onto the same route unexpectedly causing heavy metal objects to crash into each other at upwards of 35 mph. The problem with this method, though, is that local competition is virtually impossible since only one TOC can operate a route at a time. What’s more is TOCs don’t actually have much choice in who to lease a train from. Certain trains can only run on certain tracks. Why would you lease a high speed train if you’re operating a small part of the network where those trains can’t get to full speed? If you own a high speed track why would you lease a slow train that will block the whole system? Big freight trains for a passenger line? Probably not. Some electric trains require a third rail, and others require overhead power lines. Specialized and limited infrastructure, along with limited space, becomes a problem really quick when many firms are trying to run on the network. What’s more is the freight load of government regulations that firms in the industry must follow to the letter in order to keep up safety and public health standards (cue crashing metal objects). What ends up happening is that TOCs are locked into providing a specific service in a specific area for a specific time with high regulations and complex leasing systems creating high barriers to entry and making local competition impossible. What’s been created is not a healthy monopolistically competitive market, but instead a series of local monopolies.

Now that that is established the question remains, does the private system lower taxpayer costs, fare prices, and increased investment, in which case this system change was successful? The answer to all three is no. Starting with taxpayer costs, according to a study done by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change published in June 2013, direct public expenditure on the rail has more than doubled since privatization and was running around £4 billion per year (around $5.089 billion) in 2013, increasing to around £6.4bn ($8.142bn) in 2018 according to a BBC report. This cost includes subsidies paid to the railroad and cost of enforcing regulations on dozens of individual private firms. Even with substantial government subsidies, fare prices continue to rise leading to situations in which commuters are being “priced off” the railway. According to another BBC report an average price increase in 2018 of 3.4% brought season tickets price up by about £100 ($127.22). A season pass from Liverpool to Manchester (around a 56 mile trip) costs commuters £3,152 ($4009.91). Prices increased again by an average of 3.1% at the dawn of January 2019. This comes despite many cancellations in November and December of 2017 and one in seven trains being delayed by at least 5 minutes in 2018, the networks worst performances since 2005. To add salt to the wound many British rail companies are at least partly owned by foreign state-owned companies, such as the TOC Merseyrail being partly owned by Nederlandse Spoorwegen, a state-owned company based in the Netherlands, meaning money is being taken out of the country with the sail of each ticket.

To continue, investments have not increased either. British train services are often slower and more overcrowded than predominantly publicly owned services in Germany, France, Italy and Spain due to delays and an inability to adapt to increased rail use that has persisted from the early 2000s. Because of this the rail industry has increasingly focused on supplying new infrastructure. Unfortunately in commercial terms these types of ventures are loss-making due to the nature of installing a train network and having to interface with other modes of transportation, predominantly roadways. Because of this such ventures would never be undertaken by the private sector, therefore the cost tends to fall on taxpayers. The Crossrail scheme, for example, which as of 2017 is 93% complete and estimated to cost £15.4 billion ($19.592bn), is being funded by a loan from the European Investment Bank, the European Union’s nonprofit long-term lending institution, rather than private investors.

In conclusion the privatisation of British Railways, despite its virtuous intentions, has turned out to be an economic disaster for both consumers and the British government underperforming at every level from the intended goals. With higher taxpayer costs, higher fare costs, slow downs left and right, and a lack of private initiative to invest the question becomes why did this happen? What is the fundamental flaw in the railway particularly that makes the private system in the UK so terrible? The problem is that a railway is inherently unprofitable. It is very expensive to operate and maintain the rails and when a TOC only operates a limited amount of track at any given time it is very hard to turn a profit without government subsidies. When British Railways was state-operated the state didn’t need to worry about this because they operated all of the track. When changes in regulations or maintenance where brought into effect the state could bring it about relatively quickly and cheaply compared to having to interface with potentially dozens of individual firms, a process that is slow making it more expensive to implement changes. It’s the same reason that the US doesn’t rely on private initiative alone to build and maintain the roadways. When it comes to massive transportation services, it just doesn’t work.

Works Cited

“British Rail.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Dec. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail

“Chris Grayling Blames Unions for Rail Fare Hike.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Jan. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-46731749

“Crossrail.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail.
Hadley, Philip. “The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation.” Action For Rail, 1 June 2015, actionforrail.org/the-four-big-myths-of-uk-rail-privatisation/

“Merseyrail.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyrail

“Nederlandse Spoorwegen.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Dec. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Spoorwegen

“Privatisation of British Rail.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

“Rail Fare Rises: Commuters 'Priced off' UK Trains, Union Says.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Jan. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/uk-42536159

“Rail Privatisation Is ‘Great Train Robbery’, Finds CRESC Report.” Manchester 1824, The University of Manchester, 7 June 2013, www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/rail-privatisation-is-great-train-robbery-finds-cresc-report/

Topham, Gwyn. “Train Fares: UK Rail Passengers Face Biggest Rise for Five Years.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 Dec. 2017, www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/05/rail-fares-rise-ticket-prices.
Wellings, Richard. “Why Are Rail Subsidies so High?” Institute of Economic Affairs, 22 Jan. 2013, iea.org.uk/blog/why-are-rail-subsidies-so-high

Wages in America. Are they getting good or getting bad?

Wages in America.  Are they getting good or getting bad?
Dayton Arntz


What are wages?  Whenever someone like you or me gets employed at a job you sort of make a agreement with each other.  The agreement is that you are sacrificing time out of your life to work for your “boss” and in exchange he will pay you money for your time working.  Depending on how many hours you work or how advanced your job may be how much you make an hour will vary.  With a recent report from the New York Times talking about if wages are increasing or decreasing or getting better or getting worse.  We don’t know.

In January of 2018 there had been reports of the average hourly wage of increasing by 2.9%.  That’s great that means more people are making a higher hourly wage as a whole since the average doesn’t specify a particular place, it talks about the entire working class.  When I saw this and compared back to when the Great Depression started to end and the Great Recession came along I was very happy, because what I was expecting was too have more jobs being able to pay their workers more and therefore more people living a healthy stable lifestyle.  But then the reports for February came out and there was only a 2.6% growth.  I mean that is still good but I was hoping for a bigger number and now are we expecting it to go down? 




Well economists don’t know if the wage is going to go up or down because there are so many different variables to take into consideration and measuring by statistics may not help.  There are many reasons why companies could raise their minimum wage at their job which could shift this graph like how Amazon announced to raise their minimum wage to 15$ an hour.  The reason why they did was to benefit their 250,000 employees.  That change right their will shift the graph to go up but that’s not in result to the economy doing really well and how there is more money in the economy.  There is a claim that when president Trump was elected into office people saw a great jump in the economy which could explain the wage growth but we aren’t for sure about that due to numerous variables.

Now we got to talk about if raising these wages would benefit everyone or ultimately hurt even more people than help.  Let’s say we ultimately raised the minimum wage to 15$ an hour everywhere.  There will be more money in the economy which will help Americans buy more and the business’s will be profiting from the higher demand.  People who can only work at minimum wage jobs will be able to live better off and this country’s GDP per capita will increase as well.  Now the unfortunate stuff that will happen if we do raise the national minimum wage to 15$ per hour.  With numerous companies being forced to pay their workers more they can’t do that so what happens is that there going to have people being laid off just to have the business survive.  Also companies won’t hire as many people because they know they will have to pay them more.  Ultimately wages is a very odd topic but if we look at how well the economy is doing then that will relate to how high or low the wages are doing but I advise you that you go get a college education and find a job that is going to need you so that if the wage drops your job is safe and you can still earn a good income. 

Bibliography

Casselman, Ben. “Are Wage Gains Picking Up? Stalling? Questionable Data Makes It Hard to Say.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/business/economy/wage-data.html?
rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FEconomics&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=16&pgtype=collection.

Matsakis, Louise. “Why Amazon Really Raised Its Minimum Wage to $15.” Wired, Conde Nast, 13 Nov. 2018, www.wired.com/story/why-amazon-really-raised-minimum-wage/.

“Raising the Minimum Wage - Good or Bad?” EBS Consulting, 30 Mar. 2017, ebs-consulting.com/raising-the-minimum-wage-good-or-bad/.

Wisconsin Dells Economy

Wisconsin Dells Economy
Allie Guizzetti

When you think of Wisconsin Dells you might think of waterparks and roller coasters but these aren’t the main things that are bringing in money to the city. With the Wisconsin Dells being the “Waterpark Capital of the World”, a lot of money is brought into this town-- especially during the summer. As of 2017, the total amount of money spent by visitors in the summer in The Dells was $504,154,807 (wisdells.com). More money is made in the summer as people are more likely to be outside and enjoy the warm weather, but how is Wisconsin Dells able to remain a stable economy through the fall and winter months? 
Most of the revenue comes from lodging, food and sales; three things that can be done not only in the summer, but in the remaining seasons as well. To be exact, food and serving holds 18.3% of revenue and sales holds 12.6% of revenue (datausa.io). Also, the total amount of expenditures for lodging was $414,988,037 in 2017 (wisdells.com). Wisconsin Dells is a vacation stop for many people which makes sense why there are so many hotels and that lodging is what makes in the most money. It is a necessity that the people demand to have when they are on vacation. Also, food is a necessity for visitors. For example, if you are at the water park Mt. Olympus, you’re only able to eat the food they have supplied at the park so the company raises its prices because they know that is the only choice for the consumers. Overall the total visitor spending was over $1.58 billion, a jump of just over 3.5% from last year (wisdells.com)

As well as income, employment plays a large role in Wisconsin Dells economy. From 2015 to 2016, employment in Wisconsin Dells, WI grew at a rate of 20.8%, from 1,152 employees to 1,392 employees (datausa.io). Employment has continued increasing since then as there are always more attractions being built and overall the expansion of the Dells. Out of all jobs, most people work with preparing and selling food (towncharts.com). These jobs are very useful year round which makes the economy stable not only in summer but the other seasons too. Also, unemployment rates in Wisconsin Dells are steadily going down which shows for a good working economy as a whole.
Overall, Wisconsin Dells is bringing in a lot of money is multiple ways which keeps their economy running smoothly. Even in Fall, Winter and Spring, the amount of money that is being brought in is steady each year. Summer brings in most of the profit but the $1.5 billion definitely assists the economy overall. 

Works Cited
“Wisconsin Dells Economic Impact Summary 2017.” Official Site For Wisconsin Dells | The Waterpark Capital of the World | Wisconsin Tourism, www.wisdells.com/media/facts/economic-impact.htm.

“Wisconsin Dells WI Economy Data.” Camp Lejeune UT NC Demographics Data with Population from Census, www.towncharts.com/Wisconsin/Economy/Wisconsin-Dells-city-WI-Economy-data.html.

“Wisconsin Dells, WI.” Data USA, datausa.io/profile/geo/wisconsin-dells-wi/.

The App Store

The App Store
By Robert Kubiak

An app store is a online store where you can download anything from social media to games to shopping apps. There are two prominent app stores, the Apple App Store and Google Play. In this digital age, these two app stores are vital to the health and growth of our technology. The app store gives independent people the ability to put out their own apps for people to buy which gives people employment as well as large corporations and investment into mobile app companies.
Apple has “Created...1.35 million jobs in the ‘App Store ecosystem”. According to Fortune. This includes independent people and large companies. Do you remember Flappy Bird? The creator was a man in Vietnam named Dong Nguyen. According to Forbes Flappy Bird got $50,000 a day from advertisements which is crazy considering Nguyen was just 1 man. Then let's see about a company. Supercell’s Clash of Clans, according to Forbes made an annual revenue of $892 million from advertisements and in-app purchases.

Oh yes, the dreaded microtransactions. Microtransactions are purchases you can make in the app to enhance your experience whether that be optional or necessary things. If a company makes a game for free on a phone, there will most likely be in-app purchases or microtransactions so that the creators of the app can still run the app. These are very common in almost every mobile game, but no one does it better than EA games. When EA released their Madden NFL Mobile and Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes, Smartasset reports that EA’s extra content business increased by 21% since the quarter before that.

As I was watching the New Years Eve ball drop I couldn’t help but noticed that there were advertisements for Tik Tok all over the streets. Tik Tok is a new “social media” app that had apparently made enough money to have advertisements at the New Years Eve ball drop in Times Square. That means that this app was able to compete with companies like Planet Fitness, a fitness gym giant, and Capital One a very large credit card company, for advertisement space. This showed just how much money a mobile app that has been out for only a year can gross. This will also increase the demand for Tik Tok because of all other publicity it got.

This also means that there are many, many businesses that you can invest in that create mobile apps. Not all app companies are public even after they blow up. Some companies you can invest in such as Rovio Entertainment, the creators of Angry Birds, and others are not public such as the aforementioned Supercell.

Also, the companies that own the app stores are getting lots of money out the buying of apps. According to the TechRepublic to keep your app on the app store you need to pay a yearly fee of $99 and the Google Play store has a single fee of $25. This is a huge amount of money when you take into consideration that there are, according to Statista, 2.1 million apps on the Google Play store and 2 million on the Apple App Store. For the apple store alone that it $198 million a year! That is not including the standard 30% royalties the companies get on everything sold from their app store. That means that Apple could easily gross over a billion dollars a year with different prices and sales of each app. This is very profitable for companies with app stores.

Bibliography:
“App Stores: Number of Apps in Leading App Stores 2018.” Statista, 2018, www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/.

Josephson, Amelia. “The Economics of Mobile Apps.” SmartAsset, SmartAsset, 11 Dec. 2015, smartasset.com/investing/the-economics-of-mobile-apps.

Mackenzie, Tim. “App Store Fees, Percentages, and Payouts: What Developers Need to Know.” TechRepublic, 7 May 2012, www.techrepublic.com/blog/software-engineer/app-store-fees-percentages-and-payouts-what-developers-need-to-know/.

Reisinger, Don. “Here's How Apple Is Impacting the U.S. Economy.” Fortune, Fortune, 4 May 2017, fortune.com/2017/05/04/apple-us-economy-impact/.

Spence, Ewan. “The Vital And Depressing Lessons Flappy Bird Can Teach Indie Developers.”

Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Feb. 2014, www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/02/18/the-vital-and-depressing-lessons-flappy-bird-can-teach-indie-developers/#bcc895737920.