Is Amazon a Monopoly?

Written by: Stephanie Varin

Is Amazon a Monopoly? 

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


See link here to table here for more information

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


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

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

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

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

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

Paid, Sick and Family Leave

Anika King
Economics B1
Paid Sick and Family Leave

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

How does Hunting affect the Economy

Tyler Hintz
Econ Blog Post
Reuter

How Does Hunting Affect the Economy?

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

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

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

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

US 1996 Hunting Economic Impacts

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

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

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

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




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

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

Apple

Brandan Berard
Do you believe that Apple is the most valuable company in the world of cash & money? Well we all know that Apple makes a lot of money, well maybe too much money in that they have to ship some of the money from sales off to countries overseas because of high taxes here in the USA. According to CNN Money, Apple has over $246 billion in cash in overseas accounts. In which is absolutely crazy to think about, they even have more cash than the GDP of many countries from Finland, Chile, and many other countries. So why does Apple have all this money in overseas accounts? It's because of extremely high taxes in the US and Apple doesn’t want to lose any of its money it just wants more and more, but to be fair though Apple uses their money to research new ideas for the new iPhones, iPads, Macbooks, Apple Watches, and many other of their technology to make it better than ever before. Plus they have to pay their workers because no one likes to work for free for his or her hard work all day. With all this said, Apple is going to keep on growing and keep pushing the milestones higher and higher every day. Apple is the most valuable company on the S&P 500 which is the 500 largest companies having common stock listed on the stock market, they even passed being worth over $1 trillion dollars and growing.

Above you see a demand curve for the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and the iPhone SE. Everybody has different wants and needs for his or her phones so that's why Apple makes so many different types of iPhones. The more products they have the more money they make and they more money they make the larger they become. Apple will always be one of the largest companies in the world based on economics, data, research, and overall knowledge of the company. They might even pass the GDP of the USA one day, you never know what a company is capable of in the world of technology. 

                   


Works Cited
“Apple Accelerates US Investment and Job Creation.” Apple (Canada), 31 Aug. 2018, www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/01/apple-accelerates-us-investment-and-job-creation/.
Archanco, Eduardo. “The Price Elasticity of the IPhone Demand.” The Technalyzer, 30 Mar. 2017, thetechnalyzer.com/price-elasticity-of-the-iphone-demand/.
The maker of iEverything had $246.1 billion in cash, and Investments On Its Balance Sheet As Of The End Of Its Most Recent Quarter. “Apple Has $246 BILLION in Cash, Nearly All Overseas.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2017/02/01/investing/apple-cash-overseas/index.html.

Nike's Dream Crazy Commercial

Nike’s Dream Crazy Commercial
Ellie Kaczkowski
Nike is known for supporting athletes through their career with both paraphernalia, and big endorsement deals with professional athletes worth millions of dollars. The most recent deal with Colin Kaepernick led to a major disagreement in not only the sports world but the economy as well. Nike released a commercial played during the first game of the 2018 season where Kaepernick narrated his ideology that no matter what people say you can never dream or act too crazy. Due to his recent scandal in the NFL people considered this as Nike siding with Colin’s political stance.

Before Nike could produce the controversial commercial they had to weigh the tradeoffs that this commercial would cost them; consumers that did not agree with Kaepernick's campaign would likely stop buying products from Nike out of personal opposition. While this could be a problem it is also giving them free publicity as their brand is being highlighted in the media with even the president weighing in. When the commercial was released, according to the Huffington Post, the stock plummeted in hours dropping over 3 percent, as seen in the image. The advertisement was released September 4th; people were destroying Nike products and boycotting the stores. While Nike did take an immediate hit, the consumers defacing their goods did more damage to themselves, as they lost the money they had spent on the products without getting a refund from Nike. This hurts both the producer and the consumer as the consumer stops buying the products and the company than loses the profit destroying the market.

After the initial loss of profit, Nike amassed a huge amount of free publicity both good and bad; people shared the story across all platforms and this boosted the profits with Nikes new market value being up $6 billion. People that agreed with Colin Kaepernick and Nikes political point of view used to advertisement as a reason to purchase more from the company showing their support for the cause. It also increased the amount of people wanting to have stock in the company as they shared political sides.

Nike used politics, a driving force in the United States to decide whether the commercial would be successful. They did have trade offs as they did sacrifice customers that will no longer patrion the store but in turn developed a whole new customer base. While it may have shifted the market against them temporarily it was a positive decision for their business in the long run and for the people that invested and worked for them. It will ensure that the products will stay in demand and using the political angle gave them word of mouth recognition with people that may have not normally associated with the brand.


Hershman, Brett. "Nike's New 'Dream Crazy' Ad Is Narrated By Colin Kaepernick (NYSE:NKE)." Benzinga. N.p., 15 Sept. 2018. Web. 25 Sept. 2018.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/18/09/12310279/nikes-new-dream-crazy-ad-is-narrated-by-colin-kaepernick

Mosbergen, Dominique. "Nike's Market Value Surges By $6 Billion After Controversial Kaepernick Ad." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Sept. 2018. Web. 25 Sept. 2018.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nike-market-value-colin-kaepernick_us_5ba7693ae4b0375f8f9dcb09

Rucker, Derek. "Nike - Dream Crazy - A Rich Opportunity To Learn About Brand Management In The Digital Age." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14 Sept. 2018. Web. 25 Sept. 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/derekrucker/2018/09/06/nike-dream-crazy-a-rich-opportunity-to-learn-about-brand-management-in-the-digital-age/#5c4765db3c4b 

Minimum Wage

Noah Schlaikowski

In 1938 when minimum wage was first introduced at $0.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage has increased 22 times. The minimum wage is the salary floor or the lowest possible rate that employers can pay employees.
The most recent update to the federal minimum wage was in 2009, when it was raised to $7.25 an hour. So should minimum wage be raised and to what hourly rate?   


Yes, there are many things that could be done if we raised the minimum wage. The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. As a result, the pay of many workers those with families of three or more people are now well below the poverty level. An increase in the minimum wage can raise the standard of living for these impoverished workers and their families. Additional income would be spent by consumers if raised, any kind of entertainment sense more people would able to afford more expensive luxuries and would ripple through the economy. Increasing the minimum wage could also help reduce gender and race based income inequality, with everyone being paid at least a decent amount that way not one race or gender is being paid more than others. Government expenses for social programs aimed at the poor would potentially be reduced because everyone would be getting paid more and wouldn’t need as much support from the government anymore. This could also result in slightly lower taxes for other Americans.







So with that I think the question isn’t “Why should we raise minimum wage?” It should actually be “why haven’t we raised minimum wage yet?”.




Works cited



“Minimum Wage - ProCon.org.” Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?, minimum-wage.procon.org/.
   


Doyle, Alison. “Should the Minimum Wage Be Raised?” The Balance Careers, The Balance Careers, www.thebalancecareers.com/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage-2062521.