http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4947436&page=1
This article tells about some rural school districts across America that are considering shortening their school week to four days instead of the traditional five in order to save money on gas. At first glance, this seems like a great idea for both adults and kids. Kids get a three day weekend, and adults have to pay fewer taxes to support the bus system.
However, if one thinks about further effects, this really wouldn't save the communities any money at all. Yes, the school district would save on gas in the short run, but in the long run students still must complete a set number of school hours, by law, in order to move ahead. By cutting out days during the week the school year will have to be made longer, meaning more bus rides. Another area of spending that will increase if the school week is cut is childcare. Parent's won't be able to cut their work week to coincide with their children's weekend, so they will have to pay for childcare or some other mode of security to make sure their children are safe while they are away. This could also lead to increased driving by teens. I know from personal experience that if we have a three day weekend instead of the normal two we are out late Sunday nights just because we can be; driving to movies or friends houses or simply to Frosties.
I personally believe that the school districts considering this change should look at all the changes the community will have to make to accommodate this before making anything final.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Happy Cows Yield More Milk
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/wireStory?id=4868744
Little do most Wisconsinites know, but our own lovely city of Reedsburg contains a water bed factory. Big deal. But this isn't just an ordinary water bed factory; the kind people of Reedsburg focus on ensuring that the nation's cows are comfortable and happy.
Another little known fact that is almost worthy of a Snapple cap? Cows that sleep on water beds or sand produce, according to a recent study, 6 percent more milk that those that have uncomfortable bedding. And, what's more, mattresses are the worst sort of bedding as they make the cows' legs swell up.
Kirk Christie of Iowa has not only installed temperature controlled water beds for each of his cows, but has also installed multiple flat screen TV's around the barn so that his cows may watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. (I'm not even being sarcastic, he said they watch Oprah and Dr. Phil.) Now, this doesn't really have a direct link with anything we've studied thus far in class, but I think this story is a prime example of how personal morals and beliefs can play into a person's economic mindset.
The issue that I think would have a major impact on these transaction is one's view on animal value. Now I am personally against animal cruelty and abuse, but, in this situation, a cow is a cow. A cow does not need a water bed or a flat screen TV. According to the article, each water bed costs $200, plus the cost of pumping either hot or cold water through it depending on the weather conditions. Flat screen TVs run for a couple grand depending on the size. I would never spend this much money making sure a cow was comfortable enough to produce milk. Yet there are people that are so obsessed with their animals that they purchase massages, clothing, and special hotel rooms for them. These people spend a HUGE amount of money making sure their precious pooches are properly pampered (ha! alliteration!) Without people having extreme views or values, would our economy have as much of a constant flow of money as it does? Take the animal issue again. There are those that spend thousands of dollars on their dog's hair and nails each year, but then there are also people who have strong views towards saving the endangered animals and poor money into those funds. As well as those who for some reason enjoy wearing the dried skin of dead animals as fashion accessories, who spend thousands on their crocodile/snake skin boots and gloves and their mink/baby seal coats.
In a way different political views work the same way. We spend money on of for causes we agree with; and since people have different opinions, there is more money needed to ensure that your personal view comes out on top.
Little do most Wisconsinites know, but our own lovely city of Reedsburg contains a water bed factory. Big deal. But this isn't just an ordinary water bed factory; the kind people of Reedsburg focus on ensuring that the nation's cows are comfortable and happy.
Another little known fact that is almost worthy of a Snapple cap? Cows that sleep on water beds or sand produce, according to a recent study, 6 percent more milk that those that have uncomfortable bedding. And, what's more, mattresses are the worst sort of bedding as they make the cows' legs swell up.
Kirk Christie of Iowa has not only installed temperature controlled water beds for each of his cows, but has also installed multiple flat screen TV's around the barn so that his cows may watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. (I'm not even being sarcastic, he said they watch Oprah and Dr. Phil.) Now, this doesn't really have a direct link with anything we've studied thus far in class, but I think this story is a prime example of how personal morals and beliefs can play into a person's economic mindset.
The issue that I think would have a major impact on these transaction is one's view on animal value. Now I am personally against animal cruelty and abuse, but, in this situation, a cow is a cow. A cow does not need a water bed or a flat screen TV. According to the article, each water bed costs $200, plus the cost of pumping either hot or cold water through it depending on the weather conditions. Flat screen TVs run for a couple grand depending on the size. I would never spend this much money making sure a cow was comfortable enough to produce milk. Yet there are people that are so obsessed with their animals that they purchase massages, clothing, and special hotel rooms for them. These people spend a HUGE amount of money making sure their precious pooches are properly pampered (ha! alliteration!) Without people having extreme views or values, would our economy have as much of a constant flow of money as it does? Take the animal issue again. There are those that spend thousands of dollars on their dog's hair and nails each year, but then there are also people who have strong views towards saving the endangered animals and poor money into those funds. As well as those who for some reason enjoy wearing the dried skin of dead animals as fashion accessories, who spend thousands on their crocodile/snake skin boots and gloves and their mink/baby seal coats.
In a way different political views work the same way. We spend money on of for causes we agree with; and since people have different opinions, there is more money needed to ensure that your personal view comes out on top.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Video Game One Stop Shopping
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/GadgetGuide/Story?id=4767635&page=1
This post idea came from an unusual source: four hyperactive, technologically, somewhat annoying 12 and13 year old boys. My little brother's friends were over this weekend and raving about the latest internet sites, ipod advances, and video games. Grand Theft Auto IV was recently released, and I was informed that it was "Soooooo cooooooool!" I'll admit that a GTA fix every now and then is quite entertaining, but I wondered what the impact of fanatical middle school boys who were obsessed with the latest technology would have on the economy with the release of an anticipated new game.
After some research I came across an article that brought about a unique, but brilliant, point of view. The author is describing the intricate detailing of the GTA IV graphics, and how they are so realistic that it is almost like one is literally walking through the streets of NYC. He says that entering the shops and retail stores is almost like he is actually making a purchase. Soooo........why not utilize this in the business world? People have come to love online shopping and infomercials, so why not shop through an interactive game? With graphics being as realistic as they are, businesses could make virtual copies of their stores and products. As the "customer" (which, naturally, one would be allowed to customize to correlate with themselves) walks around the store, there could even be helpful sales people that when approached would offer information and advice about the product. Online shopping is nice, but often allows those low quality and incredibly boring 2D pictures with no opportunity to create an avatar. I believe a lot of people, especially young people, would become hooked on this new way of shopping if it was put in place.
This post idea came from an unusual source: four hyperactive, technologically, somewhat annoying 12 and13 year old boys. My little brother's friends were over this weekend and raving about the latest internet sites, ipod advances, and video games. Grand Theft Auto IV was recently released, and I was informed that it was "Soooooo cooooooool!" I'll admit that a GTA fix every now and then is quite entertaining, but I wondered what the impact of fanatical middle school boys who were obsessed with the latest technology would have on the economy with the release of an anticipated new game.
After some research I came across an article that brought about a unique, but brilliant, point of view. The author is describing the intricate detailing of the GTA IV graphics, and how they are so realistic that it is almost like one is literally walking through the streets of NYC. He says that entering the shops and retail stores is almost like he is actually making a purchase. Soooo........why not utilize this in the business world? People have come to love online shopping and infomercials, so why not shop through an interactive game? With graphics being as realistic as they are, businesses could make virtual copies of their stores and products. As the "customer" (which, naturally, one would be allowed to customize to correlate with themselves) walks around the store, there could even be helpful sales people that when approached would offer information and advice about the product. Online shopping is nice, but often allows those low quality and incredibly boring 2D pictures with no opportunity to create an avatar. I believe a lot of people, especially young people, would become hooked on this new way of shopping if it was put in place.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
OMG It's Prom!!!!
This weekend my sister and I went shopping and stumbled upon some prom dresses. I decided to look and see if I could find anything cheap. I was sorely mistaken if I thought it was still possible to buy a dress for (what I thought was) a reasonable price. Not only were most of the dresses hideous (picture a mini lime green leopard print with pink lace, only $160), but they were way too expensive for my budget.
When we got home my sister and I looked online to see if there was anything decent. One website http://www.promsgalore.com had dresses for an average of $275. The average price for another site http://www.tiza.com was $350.
Now, if one has the money and is willing to spend it on a prom dress, then fine have at it. However, I don't see how the average high school girl has an extra $300 to spend on a dress. And just a dress, not even shoes! This got me thinking, why do people spend this much even if they can't afford it? Most likely you'll only wear the dress once or twice. I decided that this is a very minute and sneaky form of price discrimination. Society has worked prom up to be a HUGE deal. It was influenced girls so much that they are willing to do unrational things to make prom night the "perfect night." The knowledge that a lot of girls are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on prom dresses allows companies to raise the prices. Not only does the demand allow for a price increase, but I bet many companies assume that we, as teenagers, will not be responsible enough to know what is a reasonable price for a dress.
The last few weeks in May, after most proms are done, the demand for dresses go down and the prices drop considerably. So, for all you shoppers who probably won't actually buy a dress until the week or so before the dance - that's ok. It will be cheaper.
When we got home my sister and I looked online to see if there was anything decent. One website http://www.promsgalore.com had dresses for an average of $275. The average price for another site http://www.tiza.com was $350.
Now, if one has the money and is willing to spend it on a prom dress, then fine have at it. However, I don't see how the average high school girl has an extra $300 to spend on a dress. And just a dress, not even shoes! This got me thinking, why do people spend this much even if they can't afford it? Most likely you'll only wear the dress once or twice. I decided that this is a very minute and sneaky form of price discrimination. Society has worked prom up to be a HUGE deal. It was influenced girls so much that they are willing to do unrational things to make prom night the "perfect night." The knowledge that a lot of girls are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on prom dresses allows companies to raise the prices. Not only does the demand allow for a price increase, but I bet many companies assume that we, as teenagers, will not be responsible enough to know what is a reasonable price for a dress.
The last few weeks in May, after most proms are done, the demand for dresses go down and the prices drop considerably. So, for all you shoppers who probably won't actually buy a dress until the week or so before the dance - that's ok. It will be cheaper.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Gorilla Massacre for Valuable Land
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4482861
This article is about a park ranger in Congo who is suspected of masterminding a mountain gorilla massacre. The mountain gorilla is an endangered species, and of the mere 700 left in the world, an estimated 360 are living in the Virunga National Park in Congo. Conservationalists were protesting cutting down gorilla habitat for lumber. Locals disagreed with the movement because they need the lumber and its by-products to make money. It is speculated that the park ranger organized the poaching as a way to protest the conservation movements that had been occuring.
This article reminded me of something we talked about in AP Environmental Science a while ago. It is known world-wide that gorillas are endangered animals. Even more broad than that, it is known that cutting down their habitat is severely damaging the environment, especially with a climate like that of Africa. However, despite what these people do or do not know, it is sometimes necessary for them to vandalize their habitat in order to survive. If one is educated on the subject, then it is fairly obvious that the long-term effects of too much forestation and over grazing will be disatrous. However, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what will happen in the future because the people need to survive now, and if cutting down an endangered species habitat is the way to do that, then so be it. This gets people sucked into a vicious cyle of devastation. The more damage done now to survive, the more damage there will be in the future, making it more impossible to survive off of what is available.
Now this does have something to do with economics. The same thing (well, not entirely to the same scale, but it's relevant) is happening in the U.S. Logging companies are fighting environmental groups because they need to log more trees in order to make a profit. If they don't make enough money, they put their lifestyles at risk. However, the more logging they do, the more habitat is destroyed, and it takes years to grow back. I guess it's all a question of how much we are willing to sacrifice to preserve our world. In Africa it's different because many of those people will die without this land, but here we can probably afford to give a little up. It's also a reminder that as much as people want to save the gorilla by donating to wildlife funds, you will indirectly help by giving to funds that help the people; because if the people aren't so desperate the gorilla won't be as endangered.
This article is about a park ranger in Congo who is suspected of masterminding a mountain gorilla massacre. The mountain gorilla is an endangered species, and of the mere 700 left in the world, an estimated 360 are living in the Virunga National Park in Congo. Conservationalists were protesting cutting down gorilla habitat for lumber. Locals disagreed with the movement because they need the lumber and its by-products to make money. It is speculated that the park ranger organized the poaching as a way to protest the conservation movements that had been occuring.
This article reminded me of something we talked about in AP Environmental Science a while ago. It is known world-wide that gorillas are endangered animals. Even more broad than that, it is known that cutting down their habitat is severely damaging the environment, especially with a climate like that of Africa. However, despite what these people do or do not know, it is sometimes necessary for them to vandalize their habitat in order to survive. If one is educated on the subject, then it is fairly obvious that the long-term effects of too much forestation and over grazing will be disatrous. However, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what will happen in the future because the people need to survive now, and if cutting down an endangered species habitat is the way to do that, then so be it. This gets people sucked into a vicious cyle of devastation. The more damage done now to survive, the more damage there will be in the future, making it more impossible to survive off of what is available.
Now this does have something to do with economics. The same thing (well, not entirely to the same scale, but it's relevant) is happening in the U.S. Logging companies are fighting environmental groups because they need to log more trees in order to make a profit. If they don't make enough money, they put their lifestyles at risk. However, the more logging they do, the more habitat is destroyed, and it takes years to grow back. I guess it's all a question of how much we are willing to sacrifice to preserve our world. In Africa it's different because many of those people will die without this land, but here we can probably afford to give a little up. It's also a reminder that as much as people want to save the gorilla by donating to wildlife funds, you will indirectly help by giving to funds that help the people; because if the people aren't so desperate the gorilla won't be as endangered.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Your Average 27 Story Home
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/GadgetGuide/story?id=4150486&page=1
This article is about India's richest man, trillionaire Mukesh Ambani, who decided it would be fun to build a 27 story home on the outskirts of New Delhi. Located near a city in which over 6 million impoverished people live in slums, Ambani has received his share of ridicule from worldwide humanitarians protesting his tower-esque home.
The mostly glass home was engineered by a Chicago architect. The high ceilings will make 27 stories seem more like 60, which is needed, of course, for the helicopter landing on the roof. If one has a fear of flying they can always park in one of the 168 parking spots in the built-in parking ramp, and them be escorted inside by one of 600 servants. Along with a health club, the humble abode will contain a full size movie theater and swimming pool - perfect for when his three children want to have sleepovers.
Now, in my opinion, this is completely ridiculous. This man technically only needs a home big enough for the five people in his immediate family, and no, I don't think that him saying he's taking in his mother-in-law is rationale enough to add an extra 25 stories onto a house.
In a country that deals with as much poverty as India, one would think that if he or she had an extra billion dollars or so lying around that there would be better uses for it than making sure you can survey the countryside for miles around by standing on your roof. With a quarter of its people below the poverty level and the 2007 GDP being an average of $2700, it's obvious that the people less fortunate than Ambani could benefit from his pocket change.
Also, if the ridiculously rich decided to donate their extra money (even if they kept enough to proclaim they still had more than everyone else) the population problem in India would be lessened. More income means more education, meaning a better chance for a good job, meaning less time to raise a family, meaning less kids. More money also means better health care, so one can have only one or two kids and not worry about them dying before the age of five. Better education also leads to more knowledge of family planning. If the population decreases, then the current social, economic, and environmental problems won't be as severe. I realize that it's not really this simple, but everything is interconnected, and it all starts with the common impoverished people being able to receive enough money to get an education. If that is allowed, then millions of other problems will naturally solve themselves over time.
This article is about India's richest man, trillionaire Mukesh Ambani, who decided it would be fun to build a 27 story home on the outskirts of New Delhi. Located near a city in which over 6 million impoverished people live in slums, Ambani has received his share of ridicule from worldwide humanitarians protesting his tower-esque home.
The mostly glass home was engineered by a Chicago architect. The high ceilings will make 27 stories seem more like 60, which is needed, of course, for the helicopter landing on the roof. If one has a fear of flying they can always park in one of the 168 parking spots in the built-in parking ramp, and them be escorted inside by one of 600 servants. Along with a health club, the humble abode will contain a full size movie theater and swimming pool - perfect for when his three children want to have sleepovers.
Now, in my opinion, this is completely ridiculous. This man technically only needs a home big enough for the five people in his immediate family, and no, I don't think that him saying he's taking in his mother-in-law is rationale enough to add an extra 25 stories onto a house.
In a country that deals with as much poverty as India, one would think that if he or she had an extra billion dollars or so lying around that there would be better uses for it than making sure you can survey the countryside for miles around by standing on your roof. With a quarter of its people below the poverty level and the 2007 GDP being an average of $2700, it's obvious that the people less fortunate than Ambani could benefit from his pocket change.
Also, if the ridiculously rich decided to donate their extra money (even if they kept enough to proclaim they still had more than everyone else) the population problem in India would be lessened. More income means more education, meaning a better chance for a good job, meaning less time to raise a family, meaning less kids. More money also means better health care, so one can have only one or two kids and not worry about them dying before the age of five. Better education also leads to more knowledge of family planning. If the population decreases, then the current social, economic, and environmental problems won't be as severe. I realize that it's not really this simple, but everything is interconnected, and it all starts with the common impoverished people being able to receive enough money to get an education. If that is allowed, then millions of other problems will naturally solve themselves over time.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yay for FAFSA!
This afternoon I spent two bliss-filled hours going through bank statements and filling out my FAFSA form with my dad. While not an extremely exciting event, going through all my forms and options raised multiple questions as to how all the money is handled, as well as what the best way to go about investing it is.
My main question had to do with my IRA. I'd been reassured that if I put at leaste $2000 a year into that account I will have around a million dollars by the time I retire. I don't know if this is true, but it's sounds easy enough, right? Wrong. I understand interest and all that jazz, but what gets me is the fact that those fun, loving accountants think that a highschooler or college student is going to be able to continually fund their account.
I see it as a decision between long-term and short-term benefits. If I can come up with that $2000 every year and don't have to pay for anything else, then alright! I'll be rich! However, I forsee some minute expenses that will be showing themselves in the next few years. With my current part time job (yes, it doesn't pay great, and that has an impact) I just barely made enough to meet this year's quota. Next year I won't have a steady (if you can call it that) income, plus I'll have to pay for school. With my lifetime savings I have just enough to cover my portion of schooling for the first year; plus the IRA money. Next year, though, I'll have....umm...oh yeah, nothing. Is it really beneficial to work towards and IRA when there are so many other pressing costs?
Taking $2000 out of your (a student's) income means $2000 more that you will have to take out in loans. This means that after you're done with school you'll have to pay that much back to the government (or whomever you get loans from), plus interest. It's no surprise that most kids fresh out of college won't have any extra money lying around to immediately pay off loans, plus put some cash into an IRA. Extra loans could lead to more loans to pay off school, then loans for other adult necessities (home, car, etc.). Starting off in too much debt almost invites one to jump into a vicious cyle of loans and interest.
So, my question is this: Is it worth it too make the extra effort to put money into an IRA so you're garuanteed to have a comfertable retirement? Or is it better for your personal finances to take care of the pressing expenses before worrying about your financial situation 50 years from now?
My main question had to do with my IRA. I'd been reassured that if I put at leaste $2000 a year into that account I will have around a million dollars by the time I retire. I don't know if this is true, but it's sounds easy enough, right? Wrong. I understand interest and all that jazz, but what gets me is the fact that those fun, loving accountants think that a highschooler or college student is going to be able to continually fund their account.
I see it as a decision between long-term and short-term benefits. If I can come up with that $2000 every year and don't have to pay for anything else, then alright! I'll be rich! However, I forsee some minute expenses that will be showing themselves in the next few years. With my current part time job (yes, it doesn't pay great, and that has an impact) I just barely made enough to meet this year's quota. Next year I won't have a steady (if you can call it that) income, plus I'll have to pay for school. With my lifetime savings I have just enough to cover my portion of schooling for the first year; plus the IRA money. Next year, though, I'll have....umm...oh yeah, nothing. Is it really beneficial to work towards and IRA when there are so many other pressing costs?
Taking $2000 out of your (a student's) income means $2000 more that you will have to take out in loans. This means that after you're done with school you'll have to pay that much back to the government (or whomever you get loans from), plus interest. It's no surprise that most kids fresh out of college won't have any extra money lying around to immediately pay off loans, plus put some cash into an IRA. Extra loans could lead to more loans to pay off school, then loans for other adult necessities (home, car, etc.). Starting off in too much debt almost invites one to jump into a vicious cyle of loans and interest.
So, my question is this: Is it worth it too make the extra effort to put money into an IRA so you're garuanteed to have a comfertable retirement? Or is it better for your personal finances to take care of the pressing expenses before worrying about your financial situation 50 years from now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)