The Truth About the US Unemployment Rate

The Truth About the US Unemployment Rate

By: Allison Bunyer

The US economy currently has an unemployment rate of 4%, which is considered pretty good in the eyes of most people. This rate is low, considering the unemployment rate was at 10.2% in the prime of the stock market crash of 2008 (NCSL). Currently, many employers are keeping American workers and people are not looking for work. And yes, holistically, we have low unemployment; but, are there groups of people the US can look to promote work in or help them find jobs? By eliminating discrimination in the workplace and promoting the work of women with disabilities and african americans, we can create a stronger workforce. 

I decided to look at 2 different groups, women with disabilities and african american workers in the workforce. These two groups have been historically unable work because of discrimination or have been discouraged to over the course of time. We have seen an increase in work from both these groups. More women started working after their factory work done in World War II and the overall empowerment of women over the last 40 years. There has also been an increase in african american workers after the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s, as many now see them as equals in the workplace. But, discrimination does not disappear overnight and still exists.

The current unemployment rate for women with disabilities is 9.4%, compared to 4% for women without disabilities (Forbes). This is the largest unemployment rate for minority groups across the country. This is also a group of people not looked at much, when thinking about the workforce. Women in this group face ‘double discrimination’. They face the struggle of being a woman, as well as having a disability. By employing women with disabilities, we can empower them to make a wage, and be able to live on their own and support themselves. The current poverty rate of women with disabilities is 30.7%, compared to the rate for women without disabilities, 12% (NWLC). By decreasing the unemployment rate in this group of Americans, we can help decrease our overall poverty as well. I understand that the government may not have the responsibility to encourage the work of these women, but if the culture of workplaces can change, and hire more people who need work to survive, our country would be much stronger.

Now to the second highest unemployment rate out of minority groups, african americans. The unemployment rate for this group is 6.8%, at its lowest since 1972. This is a great step forward for our country, as many people now realize we are all equal. Especially since this means many other unemployment rates for minorities are low. But, if the rate is broken down, the rate for black men is 6.1% and 2.9% for white men (BLS). We still see a lot of difference between the rates of black men and white men, but the overall rate for african americans is very low, which means the US is making a lot of progress.

When promoting all groups of Americans to work and eliminating discrimination, we can make our unemployment rate even lower.

Works Cited

Brainerd, Jackson. Affirmative Action | Overview, www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx.

Kim, Sarah. “Why No One Talks About The High Unemployment Rate Among Women With Disabilities.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/sarahkim/2019/02/20/women-with-disabilities-unemployment/#3cbbb68a58a1.

Here's the Deal with the Green New Deal

Here’s the Deal with the Green New Deal
By Amaya Seidl

Since its public introduction just over two weeks ago, the Green New Deal, proposed by congresswoman and self-proclaimed radical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has stirred up a great deal of controversy across the political spectrum. The ambitious resolution calls for a drastic reformation of the US economy in order to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately slow climate change, in addition to various indirectly related policy goals, such as a job guarantee, food and housing security and various social justice initiatives.

Highlights of the proposal include eliminating combustible engines, largely abandoning air travel in favor of nationwide high-speed rail, and either updating current buildings to satisfy a goal of optimal water and energy efficiency, or constructing new buildings that satisfy these standards. To address the particular burden such dramatic changes would place upon minority communities, Ocasio-Cortez included the promise of “providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all”. All of these proposals, of course, would require massive funding and an expansion of government power that is perhaps even more daunting.

When examining the GND proposal, it’s easy to see that it includes a whole lot of answers to the question: “What?”, listing a plethora of bold economic feats, but only limited and vaguely-worded explanations for the question: “How?” and no indication of an answer to: “How much?” when it comes to cost estimations. Thus, the resolution has raised the eyebrows of politicians, economists, and civilians alike considering its immense cost.

To predict the answer to “How much?”, former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin concluded: “The first cut at a grand total runs from $51.1 to $92.9 trillion between 2020 and 2029. Even if the estimates are 5 to 10 times too high (and I suspect they are more likely too low), it is hard to wrap one’s head around numbers these large.” These estimates indicate an annual cost per household of up to $650,000, which is no joke. Beyond this, the opportunity cost of transforming the entire economy within a small window of time at the expense of some of its largest industries is inestimable.

When it comes to answering the “How?” question, AOC and her supporters rely on brief and nonspecific  arguments. Occasio-Cortez herself answers: “The same way we paid for the New Deal... The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars”, dodging the nuts-and-bolts of it all. 
The reality is that FDR’s original New Deal, whose name the GND is inspired from, costed upwards of $50 billion, but according to Jim Powell of Forbes, “We aren't paying down these obligations inherited from the old New Deal. On the contrary, the total tab keeps getting bigger every year. While the old New Deal involved unprecedented peacetime spending during the 1930s, its current escalating obligations dwarf that spending.”

Eventually, AOC referenced specific funding strategies for her proposals, such as the Federal Reserve expanding credit and the introduction of new “investments” and public banks. Still, she quickly retreats to the argument that it’s not the cost of the GND that we should be concerned with, but instead the massive societal benefits that it will bring in the long run, and such emotional rhetoric dominates the pro-GND sphere. 

The Green New Deal has gained the support of numerous democrat presidential candidates, including Kamala Harris (CA) and Elizabeth Warren (MA). However, more moderate representatives question the feasibility of such a bold plan, but support its concepts loosely. When questioned by Politico, Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they're for it right?”, suggesting the GND shows no particular promise. Predictably, Republicans oppose the Green New Deal, mainly due to its liberal economic policies.

Support it or not, AOC and her Green New Deal are missing a major piece of the puzzle. It’s illogical and dangerous to pursue such a daring resolution without weighing the opportunity cost against the benefits. Perhaps its most concerning element is the theme of big government, which permeates the entire resolution and rightfully raises questions about underlying motives to increase government power. Ultimately, it seems the American people, republican and democrat alike, simply aren’t ready to sacrifice the economic freedom characteristic of a free market economy and emphasized in our current mixed economy in favor of a dramatic shift towards a command economy model that would inevitable with the adaptation of the Green New Deal. In the end, it comes down to cost-- both economic and ideological.

Works Cited
“Original Green New Deal FAQ” NPR, NPR, apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ.

“Green New Deal Report.” Data For Progress, Data For Progress, www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal#afford.

Grunwald, Michael, et al. “The Trouble With the 'Green New Deal'.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 15 Jan. 2019, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/15/the-trouble-with-the-green-new-deal-223977.

Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline.” NPR, NPR, 7 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline.

Natter, Ari. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 25 Feb. 2019, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria. “Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal.” Congress.gov, 8 Feb. 2019, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text.

Powell, Jim. “The 'Old' New Deal Still Isn't Paid For.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 19 June 2013, www.forbes.com/2009/02/11/new-deal-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0211_jim_powell.html#4ae4403a45b3.

Is College Worth it?

Matthew Constable

After four years of high school you have to make one of the most significant decisions in your life, “Should I or should I not go to college”? For a very long time; college has seemed a requirement for most, something you cannot pass up on because if you do you will end up living in a cardboard box, however, with the rise of new ways to get rich some are choosing to drop college and pursue something outside of schooling. College debt is a massive factor in why some refuse college. College tuition has been increasing every year. The average cost of tuition and fees for the 2018-2019 school year was $35,676. These massive numbers scare away some, but the opportunity to pay that debt back and continue to make money is what drives students to pursue college.

“As of May. 2018, about 44 million Americans owed over $1.5 trillion in student debt. “ (ProCon.org). College education has been seen as the final goal for most kids, because of this a lot of kids are going into debt from college. As the graph shows, however, having at least a   degree does mean you are likely to be employed than someone without a degree.  Even with the higher chance of getting a job is it really worth the price you have to pay? While some people choose to not go to college the general consensus is still that college is a must, because of this there's been a growing number of college degrees causing inflation in college degrees. Because of all the degrees people now have and are getting it's getting harder to get the job you wanted, in order to stand out you will have to go even further into college getting more degrees or you will have to risk not getting your dream job and be stuck with crippling debt. As you can see on a chart the percentage of degrees being handed out has been increasing. This rise in degrees is   to keep getting worse making people have to now pay more if they want to succeed

“Is college worth it”? In the end, that's for you to decide, competition for jobs will keep rising but if you want to be a doctor or nurse you will have to go through college and just hope you can get the job you want. College can be really good or really bad depending on the profession you chose. The cost of college will continue to rise, some people are finding success without a degree while others are finding success with a degree. It's up to you to decide if college is worth it.

“College Education - ProCon.org.” ProConorg Headlines, college-education.procon.org/.

“College Is Worth the Cost. Here's How Schools Can Prove It.” RealClearEducation, www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2018/01/05/college_is_worth_the_cost__heres_how_schools_can_prove_it_110245.html.

Animal Testing

Nina Donovan - Animal Testing Blog Post

Animal testing refers to procedures done on living animals for research to provide humans with a better idea of how certain drugs or products will affect humans. Some of these may include cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals. Laws requiring testing have been around since 1938 but have recently sparked a concern in consumers due to the amount of inhumane photos and information released about animals in the lab and the lack of economic positivity surrounding the topic.

According to Cruelty Free International, “the US drug industry invests $50 billion per year in research, but the approval rate of new drugs is the same as it was 50 years ago. Only 6 percent of the 4,300 international companies involved in drug development have registered a new drug with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1950”. As shown on the graph to the right, throughout the years there has been a steady increase in the amount of money spent on animal testing and research. In addition, this money is not only wasted when experiments are not successful but the funding for these tests are coming from citizens tax money. The opportunity cost of these decisions is that we are setting ourselves back by spending money where no economic growth is being made.
Although humans and animals do share a few things in common, multiple studies have shown just how different they actually are. For example, animals do not get most diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major heart diseases, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s, HIV or schizophrenia. A recent study found that, “over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50 percent of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matches with human DNA” and “out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19 percent could have been predicted by animal tests”.  If these are only a few of the statistics showing how little we have in common with animals, than there is a possibility that products on the market may not be safe for our consumption and use. 
Other than just the economic factors that take part in animal testing, animal testing largely impacts the physical and mental well being of the animals being tested on. Often these procedures cause them a great deal of suffering and if not left permanently damaged by the experiment, many are haneously killed after being tested on. The graph shows the most common animals tested on in the United States.
Even though there are still improvements that need to be made upon the animal testing industry, over the past ten years many companies have discontinued animal testing and discovered new methods of testing, such as human cell and tissue testing (vitro), advanced computer modeling techniques(silico models) and studies with human volunteers.
Works Cited

Cruelty Free International, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing.

“About Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html.

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA, 20 Apr. 2018, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.

“IELTS Academic Task 1 Sample Question - Pie Chart Showing Species.” IELTS Podcast, www.ieltspodcast.com/ielts-academic-task-1-sample-question-graph-7/.

“Number of Animals Used in Research in 2016 | Understanding Animal Research.” Understanding Animal Research, www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/communications-media/number-of-animals-used-in-research-in-2016/.

The Stillman Exchange. “Animal Rights: Economic Impact.” The Stillman Exchange, The Stillman Exchange, 3 Apr. 2014, thestillmanexchange.com/2014/02/25/animal-rights-economic-impact/.

Low Unemployment Rates Causing Harm to the Economy

Low Unemployment Rates Causing Harm to the Economy
Written By: Emily Newcomer

An average or good rate of unemployment is between 4.5% and 5% (Amadeo).  As of right now, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is 3.9%.  While it is common to believe that an economy should strive for the lowest possible unemployment rate, a rate too low or of 0 is not feasible nor desirable.  Lowering the unemployment rate should not be a concern of the economy, however, I believe that quite the opposite should be prioritized.  The harmfully low unemployment rates causes hardships on employers, inefficiency to increase, and wages to stagnate.


First of all, there are more jobs being created than the amount of people able and willing to work.  Finding and hiring a capable employee with the right skillset is becoming increasingly difficult for employers as job opportunities are vast and most people must be enticed before even considering an offer.  In fact, according to Josh Bersin, an analyst and global researcher, “...[recruiters] are finding a 40% increase in time to hire.”  This is because candidates for a job will often disappear when a better offer comes along, leaving businesses to scramble to recruit new candidates.  Additionally, the gap between a desired worker and the skill set of a person looking for a job widens.  More specifically, about 1/3 of the labor force doesn’t match the required skills for available jobs (Hormann).  Competent workers are already employed, leaving employers desperate and forced to hire a person that only slightly fits in with the job description.

Furthermore, with each additional worker hired, efficiency decreases.  When the cost of hiring another employee outweighs the productivity, slack appears in the labor market (Hankin).  On the graph to the right, the slack, which is also called the output gap is calculated.  It is measured by subtracting total unemployment (U3) from the combination of total unemployment, underemployment, and hidden unemployment (U6).  At a certain point, when total unemployment decreases, the output gap increases, creating more slack or inefficiencies in the economy.  Some unemployment is beneficial, even necessary, to create a labor market that can reach maximum efficiency and productivity.

Lastly, lower unemployment rates should supposedly increase workers’ bargaining power, however this is not the case.  As mentioned previously, economic slack decreases efficiency in the market.  This slack also causes subdued wages, or wages that don’t increase in proportion to inflation.  During the recovery from the Great Recession of 2008-09, workers had very little bargaining power over wages as the labor market had too much slack and people were wary to quit their jobs.  Although the job market has expanded since then, the state of wages is still argued to be the cause of the erosion of workers’ labor market leverage and the growing power of employers (Bevins).  Wages, bargaining power, and unemployment rates are all interdependent, and a better balance needs to be found because excessively low unemployment rates are a factor of stagnated wages.

While the economy could be worse-off with unemployment rates reaching 20%, like in the Great Depression, it could also be better-off with a slightly higher rate that falls within the average unemployment rate.  By implementing changes that would cause the unemployment rate to marginally rise, then productivity, efficiency, and wages could all increase.

Works Cited

Amadeo, Kimberly.  “Natural Rate of Unemployment, its Components, and Recent Trends.”  The Balance, 16 Nov. 2018, https://www.thebalance.com/natural-rate-of-unemployment-definition-and-trends-3305950

Bersin, Josh.  “The Ugly Side to Today’s Low Unemployment Rate.”  Forbes, 3 July 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/07/03/the-ugly-side-to-todays-low-unemployment-rate/#7a3406e63e99

Bevins, Josh.  “A Long Spell of Very Low Unemployment Would Raise Wages.”  Economic Policy Institute, 20 July 2018, https://www.epi.org/blog/a-long-spell-of-very-low-unemployment-would-raise-wages-even-in-the-face-of-employers-monopsony-power/

Hankin, Aaron.  “The Downside of Low Unemployment.”  Investopedia, 4 May 2018, https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemployment/

Hormann, Bill.  “Low Unemployment Means Fewer Skilled Workers Available.”  13abc, 6 Oct. 2018, https://www.13abc.com/content/news/Low-unemployment-means-fewer-skilled-workers-available-495352691.html

Technology Takeover

Technology Takeover
Marie Kane

It’s no secret that technology is slowly taking over the workforce. Between assembly line workers being replaced with robots and even cashiers at McDonald’s, we can’t be sure if any job is really safe, but contrary to popular belief, there is an upside to these technological advancements. From a purely business standpoint, there’s no reason to keep human workers when robots are available to do the job just as well. Technology lowers the cost of production. Although it may be more expensive at first, technology is a one time cost that doesn’t require hourly wages like human workers do.

Furthermore, technology makes production more efficient by minimizing the time it takes to make a product, and creating more goods than an actual human in any given time. However, producers need to be sure they don’t produce a surplus to avoid losing money instead of making money. As long as producers know when to shut off their machines production will be just fine. The increasing amount of technology in businesses actually correlated to economic growth. There are jobs that are replaced by technology, but there are also jobs that are born through technology. The graph to the left shows how many jobs technology has helped create. When computers crash someone needs to be there to fix them and it takes a specific set of skills to fix high tech robots, the challenge of technology creates jobs as much as it gets rid of them.

Although, some older workers may become discouraged when they lose their job to a robot. These individuals may not be able to keep up with current technology and make give up looking for a job altogether. Although it may appear that robots are stealing jobs, in reality they’re better for the economy because they do jobs that no one enjoys doing. The robots create jobs in IT and are more efficient and cost less in the long run than regular workers.

The Macroeconomic Case for Single Payer Healthcare

The Macroeconomic Case for Single Payer Healthcare
By: James Davis

One of the most contentious issues of our political time is the fate of the American healthcare system. Politicians for decades have known that we have a broken system and have proposed many ways to fix it. One of those ways is known as “Medicare For All” or “Universal Healthcare”, a system where healthcare would be paid for by taxes instead of by private expenditure. It is a common thought that private industry is more efficient than the public sector, and while that is oftentimes true I hope to show that the United States health system is in reality a market failure that calls for dramatic increases in government intervention in order to produce better results.

Our current healthcare system is a complicated web of private and publicly funded hospitals, health insurance companies, public programs to help people pay, pharmaceutical companies creating drugs and controlling patents and distributing medicine and a thousands of people who fall through the cracks. There are two major government programs designed to subsidize those in the market who cannot otherwise afford healthcare or insurance, Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (for poor people). These programs were recently expanded under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which hoped to reduce prices by improving the government process for subsidizing public insurance plans as well as creating a marketplace to improve competition and reduce prices, in addition to regulating private plans to guarantee everyone gets a minimum level of care. Although this plan has produced good results, it is not nearly enough. Approximately a million people in the United States a year a bankrupted by medical bills and millions more can’t get the quality of care they need for their conditions, hitting poorer people especially. So how can we fix this?

Virtually every high-income country in the world has some sort of government funded healthcare in varying degrees of control. The United Kingdom has its National Health Service, a system of healthcare which quite literally hires all the doctors and nurses and means healthcare is completely funded by taxes. Canada has a single payer system with private hospitals but government run health insurance. Both of these systems produce higher quality care for cheaper. In fact the United States spends 17.7% of its GDP on healthcare. This is nearly twice the roughly 10% of most other developed countries, which all achieve better results than the US including in infant mortality, life expectancy, and maternal mortality, with virtually no bankruptcies as a result of medical care. A tax-funded system also encourages people to get more regular checkups which results in better preventive care, saving money down the line instead of dealing more expensive diseases that could have been caught early.

One common argument against single payer healthcare is cost. However, according to conservative estimates of $7.35 trillion annually by 2031 that would have to be absorbed by the federal government, the US would save money overall as private expenditure is expected to be $7.65 trillion annually by 2031. This estimate is conservative because it assumes that prices for medicine, doctors, and hospitals remain the same. However, most estimates assume that a public healthcare system would bring these costs back to an equilibrium significantly below the current level, as evidenced by the costs in other countries with nationalized healthcare. Overall, single payer healthcare is cheaper while producing better outcomes for Americans in need of care. It is time for the US to transform its system of healthcare to one that is better at meeting the needs of its people.

Works Cited

“About Single Payer.” Corporate Social Responsibility in Health Care: No Such Thing - PNHP's Official Blog, pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Do Medical Bills Really Bankrupt America's Families?” The Balance Small Business, The Balance, www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729.

Kliff, Sarah. “12 Questions about Single-Payer Health Care.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 1 June 2015, www.vox.com/2014/6/26/18080458/single-payer.

Roth, Louise Marie. “Single-Payer Health Care Is Better than ObamaCare.” TheHill, The Hill, 16 Nov. 2018, thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/417208-single-payer-health-care-is-better-than-obamacare.

Stein, Jeff. “Does Bernie Sanders's Health Plan Cost $33 Trillion - or Save $2 Trillion?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 31 July 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-bernie-sanderss-health-plan-cost-33-trillion--or-save-2-trillion/2018/07/31/d178b14e-9432-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.982a733c8f34.

The Business of The Bachelor

The Business of The Bachelor
By: Anna Holzhauer

The Bachelor, Bachelorette and Bachelor in Paradise are the most dramatic, love encompassing show aired on ABC. These contestant fight for love as they travel around the world, go on dates, and experience some of the most exotic adventures. The real question is, how are they able to afford the amount of traveling the contestants do throughout the season?

According to CNN, The Bachelor has been running for so long due to the spinoff being introduced “The Bachelorette” and later “Bachelor in Paradise”. A majority of their profits come from advertising (187.3 million dollars from the 2014-2015 season). If you subtract the costs of production and the costs of traveling, each show brings in about 86 million dollars in revenue for this reality franchise and averaging around 4.7 million viewers.

The Bachelor has aired 20 seasons so far and is hoping to continue this dramatic show going forward. With the amount of time that has passed since that first episode, technology has changed as well. With the development of apps such as Twitter and Instagram, it has increased the demand for the show. About 352,000 tweets were made from just one season of the Bachelorette. More people are wanting to watch this show because of what they are seeing on social media. Along with that, there are more ways for viewers to watch the show today. Not only are you able to live stream when it is aired, but you are also able to go back and rewatch this show. With that said, the demand and supply for viewing the Bachelor has increased.

According to Chris Harrison, the host of all three shows, says the Bachelor is "A bizarre anomaly in TV. Typically, a show finds an audience and then that audience gets older and the younger audience doesn't think it's cool". Yet the Bachelor has been able to appeal to a whole spectrum of viewers ranging from youth to elders.

The ads, viewers, and popularity of this reality TV franchise is what has kept it running for so many years.

Works Cited

"The Bachelor, " "The Bachelorette", et al. “The Business of 'The Bachelor' Franchise.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/media/bachelor-business/index.html.

Poggi., Jeanine, et al. “Coming Up Rosy: Inside the Business of 'The Bachelor'.” Ad Age, 12 Oct. 2015, adage.com/article/media/business-bachelor/300852/.

The Efficacy of Price Discrimination

The Efficacy of Price Discrimination
Written by: Stephanie Varin

Price discrimination, when firms charge different prices to different consumers, has been largely debated based on social utility and efficiency. As a whole, price discrimination reduces consumer surplus and increases company revenue, usually by using personal information or information about your purchase to deduce the elasticity of your demand. For example, airlines will usually charge more for flights on the weekends because the demand for these flights are more inelastic vs. red eye flights on weekdays.

Price discrimination is apparent in several degrees: the most severe, first degree, exists in perfect discrimination in which each consumer pays their equilibrium price. This completely eliminates any consumer surplus in the market, but is usually impossible.
The second degree exists in discrimination through quantity or quality. For example, a firm may charge more for a product with a perceived higher quality or charge less for a larger quantity in order to encourage the purchase of more product.

The first degree exists in discrimination of location, age, income, or frequency of purchase. A senior citizen may be offered an early bird discount, or a child may be able to get into a theme park free because their elasticity of demand is much more elastic than those with a higher income.
Price discrimination, though, as the internet and IT technology has become more and more advanced, has become much more pervasive into the social benefit of society and our personal privacy. Retail and travel websites use cookies to track which websites have been visited recently and frequency of visit to websites to gauge elasticity of demand in consumers, and have recently developed “fingerprinting” technology to track users across browsers and databases. For example, Orbitz Travel, a travel website comparable to Booking.com or Trivago, has been price discrimination against Mac users since 2012. Even more pervasive, EpiPen, the auto-injecting pen used to treat anaphylaxis, has risen its prices 500% in the past decade. Although the pens are extremely cheap to produce, averaging around $1 per pen, they have massive margins due to price gouging an inelastic market. This reduces consumer access to these life-saving devices, and thus social cost outweighs social benefit.

There’s no doubt that price discrimination can be effective. In cases of monopolies, price discrimination can eliminate deadweight loss and generate a larger social surplus than a regulated monopoly. It also increases profitability which in turn results in larger supply, and thus lower prices, unless the market is functioning with inelastic demand as it does with pharmaceuticals. However, price discrimination is not moral, and, in inelastic markets such as pharmaceuticals or healthcare, it can be dangerous and life threatening to those that cannot afford the high prices.

Works Cited

By. “Price Discrimination Is Efficient.” After Economics, 21 Apr. 2015, www.afterecon.com/economics-and-finance/price-discrimination-is-efficient/.

Garyleff. “Why Hotel Price Discrimination Is Good for You.” View from the Wing, 24 Oct. 2014, viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2014/10/24/charging-different-prices-different-people-good/.

Howe, Neil. “A Special Price Just for You.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Nov. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/11/17/a-special-price-just-for-you/#3e99a2eb90b3.

Nutting, Rex. “What's Wrong with Price Gouging for EpiPens? Nothing, and Everything.” MarketWatch, MarketWatch, 2 Sept. 2016, www.marketwatch.com/story/whats-wrong-with-price-gouging-for-epipens-nothing-and-everything-2016-09-02.
“
Price Discrimination.” Intelligent Economist, Intelligent Economist, 27 Dec. 2017, www.intelligenteconomist.com/price-discrimination/.

What About the Inflation Rate?

What About the Inflation Rate?
By: Hailey Kiser

As of right now the current inflation rate is 1.9%. Which is the lowest it has been in 16 months. However, how much higher will it get in the future? After listening to HL Quist’s podcast, I found that we are still in the recovery stages of the economic cycle, since the last recession of 2010. So now is the time to capitalize off the “inflationary boom, before the next crash” (Quist). Now you may think that we will never have another recession, but it is inevitable that it will happen in the future. What we can do to figure out when to expect high inflation rates, is to look at forecasts and consumer prices. The chart to the right shows the forecasted inflation rates. As you can see they show an increasing rate. When we look at consumer prices we have to think about consumer spending power. Personally, I feel that consumers can’t buy as much for their money. After looking at reporter, Maria Lamagnas’ post, she states that “consumer price index increased by 2.8%.” Although, small, predictable increases in CPI is actually a good thing. When the inflation is predictable, it is easy for businesses to adjust accordingly. Furthermore, consumers are able to anticipate future prices. Thus helping them purchase goods when prices are low and boost the economy, because of the increased consumer spending.

Although we are not going to hit a recession in the near future, we still should understand how to deflate the economy. So how do we? The overall goal of deflation is to decrease the rate at which prices are increasing. What we will see the government do, is increase interest rates. When banks increase their rates “fewer people want to borrow money because it costs more to do so while that money accrues at a higher interest” (Kramer).  We will also see the contractionary monetary policy enforced. This is when the government decreases bond prices, because the fixed interest and principal payments stated in the bond will become less attractive to investors. Thus, having less people want to purchase bonds. The third method is to simply reduce the money supply. This is done when the government enacts policies that encourage the reduction of money spent. When the government enacts policies it makes sure that the money spent within the economy goes straight to their pocket because they then can control when, where and how it is spent.

Now, the trend predictions for the future could all be myths or truths. But you never know what to expect until you’re in the mists of it. Finally, knowing when and how to predict the future inflation rates and how to deflate the economy, will help tremendously in years to come. 

Works Cited

Amadeo, Kimberly. “How Bad Is Inflation? Past, Present, Future.” The Balance Small Business, The Balance, www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093.

LaMagna, Maria. “Inflation Is Rising Fast - Here's What You Should Know about Consumer Prices.” MarketWatch, MarketWatch, 12 June 2018, www.marketwatch.com/story/buckle-up-theres-a-lot-more-to-inflation-than-the-price-of-goods-2018-02-21.

Quist, H. L. “H L Quist - The Myth Buster Podcast.” Camanda Sermons, RNIB's Insight Radio, player.fm/series/h-l-quist-the-myth-buster-2394505.