Why do People Choose Certain Cars,

http://gloryautosalesltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/choosing-new-car.jpg

How do consumers choose between car options while deciding to buy a new car? Christian Wardlaw, from Ny Daily News, explains people’s interests in certain car types, and what they want in a car. In his article “10 Top Reasons Why People Buy Specific Cars.” Wardlaw provide details as to how consumers choose between car options while buying a new car.

 A Consumer's location in a key variable according to the article. If they live in areas that snow a lot, they’re going to want AWD. If they have a long commute to work,, they’re going to want a good handling and comfort. If they live in a large city, they’re going to want good fuel economy. Consumers use these variables to help them decide what features they need most to maximize their utility.

 Money is another variable. Money can decide which car size, type, color, options, and quality of the car. Most car companies have their common or generall line of cars, and their luxury line. For example, Toyota has Lexus, Nissan has Infiniti, GM has Cadillac, etc. They’ve made these separate companies in order to increase profit. These luxury brands are only available to the people with more money who are able to buy them. So money is also another variable when choosing between car options.

Future Research Question:

how do companies use central vs peripheral route to persuasion in advertising?

source billboard.com

KEY ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES I’M ADDRESSING: people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways.

 OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION: How do companies use incentivise people to buy their products using the central route or peripheral route when advertising their products

SUB QUESTIONS

• Which route is more effective?
• How is the central or peripheral applied in ads?
• Do certain people only respond to one or another?
• Which one is used more often in ads?

RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH:

• DATABASES: proquest research library.
• WEBSITES: businesstopia.net
• OTHER (OPTIONAL):

How Spotify Makes Money

Source: Spotify.com

BLOG POST #3

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices”
My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How do free music apps like Spotify make money?”

 The article/video/etc published in Investopedia titled “How Does Spotify Make Money?” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows people flock to streaming services like Spotify for their music because it is a cheaper alternative to buying every song that you want to listen to at the price of having to listen to adds every now and then.

 First, Global music piracy leads to 12.5 billion dollars lost annually and in the U.S. alone a loss of 71,060 jobs. Spotify helps to alleviate some of these losses due to piracy because if people are given a way to download their music for free legally then they have no reason to go out and illegally pirate songs. Without Spotify more money would be lost and more people in the music industry would be put out of the job.

 Second, Spotify makes money by providing a free version of the app with advertising and then also a paid subscription premium version without ads. Spotify collects revenue from companies to play their adds on the free version and then also the money from all those that pay for premium. This means that Spotify is able to constantly bring in revenue from all their free users by subjecting them to adds, and at the same time able to bring in money from all those willing to pay a monthly subscription in order to be add free and gain a few other benefits.

 Third, Many music producers dislike Spotify because record labels receive less than a penny a day when Spotify streams their music. This means that any producer that has their music on Spotify will end up losing a great deal of money from all those choosing to listen to music for free rather than choosing to pay for their music.

 In my next blog post I will research: How can consumers be persuaded to buy their music rather than finding a free alternative?

How Close Are You With Your Classmates?

www.idiva.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is, people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways & institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices. My research question to help me study the economic principle is, “What affects our decisions making process?”

 The article published in Proquest titled “How ‘Who You Know’ Affects What You Decide” demonstrates this economic principle because it argues that you surroundings and who you associate with take a huge toll on how you make your decisions. It covers the theory that people often second guess their decisions which leads them to over think and results in revising the decision way too many times.

 First, a group of researchers studied two group of employees that are from two different companies, and watch closely how they make decisions. They found that “one researcher, studies focused on how engineers solved problems, found that engineers and scientists looking for information were roughly five times more likely to turn to friends or colleagues.”

 Second, the study “ recorded each decision maker’s involvement — the nature and duration of their input and the result. Process maps showed that most decisions involved too many people, demanded too much attention from senior management, and were revisited too many times.”

 Third, the research “it found that some 60% of the time employees spent on decision making was spent with colleagues whom they identified as either input or advice providers — that is, people who weren’t involved in making the actual decision.”

 In my next blog post I will research “How does the brain affects our decision making process?”

Subconscious Values

Source: http://clipart-library.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is “Because of scarcity, people choose” and "People gain when they grade voluntarily."

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “Why are people willing to pay 2 or 3 times the original price of the original item? (Does the trade mutually benefit the buyer)”

The article published in The Harvard Business Review titled “Customers Will Pay More for Less” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows that how much people believe they benefit/gain from a trade is based on what types of items are grouped together and how they subjectively value each item. 

First, I found in research done by Aaron Brough and Alexander Chernev that “bundling expensive and inexpensive products changed what people thought those items were worth. Even when they found both items in a bundle attractive, they were willing to pay less for the bundle than for the more expensive product alone.” People subconsciously associate values with items, and when they deem one item as cheap the price of the whole bundle goes down. Other factors might come into play when we put a value on an item, like the rarity of an item and if someone famous is using that item. 

Second, Why are we putting values on items that are almost identical? There’s not a big difference in quality between a Supreme shirt and one from Walmart, but the prices are so far apart. Alexander Chernev states that “An underlying process that we call categorical reasoning. People naturally tend to classify products as either expensive or inexpensive, and this categorization influences how they judge products.” The majority of people have decided that Supreme is expensive and Walmart isn’t, even though the material and quality are almost identical.

Chernev’s research shows that categorical reasoning happens in other markets, and with more than just price. Chernev states that “adding a healthful item, such as a side salad, to an indulgent one, such as a cheeseburger, tends to lower the perceived calorie count of the entire meal. This belief that a meal containing a cheeseburger and a side salad has fewer calories than the cheeseburger alone is a function of people’s tendency to categorize meals into vices and virtues.” I found this interesting because I myself have lumped items together like this convincing myself that it is healthier for me.

In my next blog post I will research: How has the choice for Supreme to have limited supply of items and only a few store locations contributed to the public demand for the products? How and why? Why has Supreme deliberately limited the supply of its goods despite consumers willing to pay such a price? 

How Do You Build For Now and the Future?

There are many great baseball players that every general manager would love to have on their team, such as Albert Pujols. However, only a portion of the players available to sign with a team of their choosing are truly worth their price and have a good fit with the specific team.

SOURCE: espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com 

There are many great baseball players that every general manager would love to have on their team, such as Albert Pujols. However, only a portion of the players available to sign with a team of their choosing are truly worth their price and have a good fit with the specific team. The article, published in the Los Angeles Times and titled “INSIDE BASEBALL; ON BASEBALL; These contracts may be killers”, demonstrates the economic principle of scarcity because it shows how MLB teams cannot afford to spend money on every quality player in the free agent market and how the teams cannot take too many players that only fit at one or two positions on the field. 

First, the team wanting to bring in new players to their organization needs to thoroughly evaluate the player’s value before spending a major chunk of money. For example, the Florida Marlins (now called the Miami Marlins) were “linked to rumors involving [Albert] Pujols and [Prince] Fielder… though the Marlins are more likely to settle for [Hanley] Ramirez or [Jose] Reyes.” In this case, the Marlins realized that they were probably going to pay Pujols or Fielder more money than what they were worth mathematically if they elected to sign one of those high-profile players, so they believed that they could receive a better value by signing a player not quite as expensive but still quality. In other words, the Marlins had to settle for less because their financial situation did not permit them to spend high.

Second, the team must be aware of how their current roster looks before making significant changes. For instance,”the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees already have productive and expensive first basemen, so they aren't likely to enter the bidding for another one.” If teams, such as the Red Sox or Yankees, simply spend all their money on one position, the rest of the roster will have large holes with no money to spend to fill those holes. The key to having a good team is balance, and teams who do not follow that principle will run into the problem of scarcity.

In my next blog post I will research: What are the best ways for a team to improve other than within their own organization?

Environments Affect People's Minds Positively and Negatively

Source: listgecko.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways as well as Institutions are the "rules of the game" that influence choices. My research question to help me study the economic principle is “What kind of environments affect people’s minds positively and negatively?”

 The article/video/etc published in Mutual Responsibility titled “3 Ways The Environment Shapes Human Behavior” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows that neural activity, gender, and social interactions shape our behavior.

 First, the article explains that neural activity--which includes “electrical signals, that travel along the branches of neurons, and chemical signals, that jump across from branch to branch,”--encodes our “thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.” The article also claims that there is a plethora of evidence stating that “neural activity can cause your connections to change.” Therefore, everything you are and do “[is] a result of your environment.” Thus, your environment can positively or negatively impact your behavior, depending on your experiences.

 Second, society greatly impacts behavior, especially the behavior of males versus females. For example, studies have shown that “little boys who were told they’re not supposed to touch something[…]often will grab it and touch it, whereas a little girl can be given a verbal demand not to touch it.” Young boys are also “punished more frequently for transgressions” compared to young girls. They are told not to cry, but instead, “man-up.” The article states that “dads sometimes are very, very scared if their little boy is showing any version of effeminate behaviors.” These statistics only go to show that “There is no such thing as: bad, criminal, lazy, brilliant people, thieves or racists. Only people predisposed to such behavior. But if the environment doesn’t trigger them, the behavior never manifests.” In this case, people’s environments tend to have a negative effect on their behavior because it exposes them to behaviors such as racism and criminal activity. If people were never exposed to those things, they would never exist.

 Third, people who have lived their lives isolated from the rest of society and human contact are known as feral children. The article states that “feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation.” When humans are not socialized with the rest of society, they lack common, human behaviors. For example, “Oxana Malaya spent her life, living in a kennel, with dogs.” When she was discovered, she behaved like the animals. Therefore, when the environment around you behaves a certain way, that is how you will behave as well.

 In my next blog post I will research: To what extent is behavior controlled by the mind?

Adaptation of Advertising in America

Source: Tenor.com

The article published in RiverTownMultimedia.com titled “How Advertising Has Changed Over Time” demonstrates the economic principle "people respond to changes in predictable ways" because it shows that companies have adapted to societal changes in order to appeal to consumers, and therefore sell more products. Therefore, their ads and marketing techniques influence consumers, and are influenced by them too.

First, marketing has changed over the years, and it is evident in the ways advertising has adapted to different periods of history, and advances in society. Says the article, “Data and research have been around as long as marketing. The amount of data and trackability of users has not. That’s really all that’s changed.” Due to the creation of faster, more reliable technology, appealing to customers has become easier. So, as society progresses, so do companies’ ads. Technology has allowed these companies to adapt and appeal to more people by personalizing ads online based on online searches, and it also has allowed for more ads on videos, websites, and more, thus reaching wider audiences.     
This is vastly important, because due to the rise of consumerism, companies have needed to try harder to reach their intended audience, because so many companies started producing ads too. In the past, companies tended to put a few ads in newspapers, magazines, and after the invention of the television, perhaps a few commercials. It was significantly less overwhelming in the past, because consumerism wasn’t so emphasized,and therefore companies didn’t need to produce a plentiful amount of ads to reel in customers. Now, it’s a competition to create as many ads as possible, and to make them as eye-grabbing and entertaining as can be. Claims the article, “In a world in which ads are delivered constantly and everyone is vying for that short attention span, who stands out?” This is mostly how advertising and marketing has changed over the years: an influx of advertising, and with that a spike in creativity. Consumers are so used to constant advertising that companies have had to step up and get more personal with it.

Although ads have become more creative, the general thematic idea of ads have not: they all are merely to sell a product. If one thing hasn’t changed, it’s the idea behind ads. Although, nowadays ads must put more emphasis on the amazing-ness that is their product if they want to sell it. As I mentioned in my last blog post, people just want to be happy and live life as easily as possible. So, they aren’t going to buy that new vacuum cleaner unless it changes their life, so ads have begun to revolve around the happiness that comes with a product, despite the fact that there’s only so much happiness a new blender can bring.

In all, it’s very apparent that with the rise of consumerism, companies have begun to increase the amount of ads they produce to keep up with the spike in advertising, and also that these ads have become more personal through means of technology and creativity. In my next blog post I will research how these ads and marketing has changed over the years.

Big Bucks on Guns

source of image

Why do people purchase firearms? 

 source: October 4th 2015, The Psychology of Guns, Joe Pierre, link for article

 The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways” 

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “When do people find it necessary to purchase firearms?” This article helps me determine an answer because it shows why people feel the need to defend them selves, whether it is from a physical attack or a government policy.

 First, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that guns are fun to use, no matter what side of the debate of gun control you are on. If you have ever fired a gun you will understand the appeal to it. If not, you seem to get the same feel you would as doing your favorite hobby.

 Second, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that guns are in the history of the US since the beginning, and will most likely not go away. They are in the constitution, it will be almost impossible for the United States to out right ban guns from people. So, we should be properly educating people on what they are.

Third, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that people buy guns to make themselves and others feel safe even though that can actually have the reverse effect. Owning a gun may make you feel tough or powerful, but some times the gun on your hip can be used against you. Or possible you accidentally injure yourself with it.

In my next blog post I will discuss "how do you get a gun in Illinois?"

Women vs Men

                                         Source: Female Doctors Paid $20K Less Than Males


The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices” My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How do cultural differences affect wages between men and women in healthcare?” The article/video/etc published in TIME Magazine titled “Female Doctors paid $20K Less Than Males” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows that it’s still a “man’s world” no matter which profession in healthcare and especially for African American women. One reason for this might be women tend to negotiate less aggressively. 

 First, it doesn’t matter what profession you go into to, because women earn 15% - 38% less than men for doing the same work as they do. In healthcare alone, women make at least $20K less than men do, whether it’s being front desk or being a doctor or surgeon.

 Second, it not as noticed as the black versus white pay gap because race seems to be a bigger issue. Although that may be true, it actually means that black women earn even less than their male counterparts because of their race and their gender. That may be an exaggeration to the cause, but it is a real problem that women are not treated equally when they work equally as hard as men do.

 Third, there are a combination of three factors that explain why the wage gap is there. Women tend to negotiate less aggressively than men do and they’re also less likely to solicit outside job offers in order to try and get a raise from their current employer. Of course this is women’s fault because companies and industries give them plenty reason to be a little less pushy because there are greater or different consequences when a woman steps out of line than when a man does.

All in all, discrimination is what really is happening whether people know it or not.

 In my next blog post I will research: If there are locations that give men and women equal or close to equal pay.

How People's Environments Affect Their Behavior

Source: giphy.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is that people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways as well as Institutions are the "rules of the game" that influence choices.

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How do people's minds and environments affect their behavior?”

 The article published in ProQuest as well as Sage Journals titled “Environmental Aesthetics” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows that the environment that surrounds a person affects their behavior.  

First, the article explains that the appearance of the environment (city, town, neighborhood) “affects [a person’s] daily activities. For example, if a person lives within a community that appears clean and put-together, the person will be more motivated to be efficient and hard-working.  This is very similar to our own towns surrounding Hinsdale Central.  The towns are very well kept and generally modern, and that plays a role in why the people in this area are motivated to work hard.

Second, the environments aesthetic “[evokes] feeling and emotions such as pleasure, relaxation, excitement, and fear.” For example, when someone from the Hinsdale Central area enters a town closer to inner-city Chicago, they tend to be a bit apprehensive and fearful.  However, when someone enters a town within Hawaii, they will feel relaxed and at peace.

Third, these “emotional responses” to the environment can affect “spatial behaviors,” or a person’s reactions to their surroundings.   Going back to the inner-city Chicago example, someone from the Hinsdale area would probably act very cautiously, and try to keep to themselves.  This is because the person senses  danger from the unfamiliar area due to its appearance, and thus they will act in a way that makes them feel safer.

In my next blog post I will research:
What kind of environments affect people’s minds positively and negatively?

What are the Incentives of renewable energy?

The economic principle I’m exploring is people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways.

www.ucsusa.org

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is What incentives do individuals have to increase usage of green energy?

The article/video/etc published in the Union of Concerned Scientists titled “Renewable Electricity Standards Deliver Economic Benefits" demonstrates this economic principle because it argues/shows that government provides incentives for renewable energy.

First, the government provides federal subsidy in order to fund and reward those who install renewable energy.Also, there are proposals that those who do use more renewable energy should receive tax advantages. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges that all levels of local, state, and federal government must assist in providing incentives and cooperating in transitioning to renewable energy.

Second, government and corporations fund businesses to harvest renewable energy systems and also try not to change consumers’ typical prices by doing so. Businesses do not have to extensively suffering by converting to renewable energy harvesting. Government provides an easy transition to save the environment by providing incentive to not severely increased the price of their products.

Third, the installation of renewable energy by the government eventually gives company free energy due to harvesting the sun or wind which does not cost money unlike paying for electricity rates and fossil fuels which can have volatile prices. The money saved is a huge reward for companies who want to save money on the necessity of electricity.

In my next blog post I will research:  

What laws have been enacted to encourage renewable energy production?

A Switch in the Workforce

https://cdn1.iconfinder.com/

The Economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are rules of the game that influence choices”. My research question to help me explore the principle is - How do gender norms affect job opportunities/choices? The article published in Business News Daily titles “Gender Roles? Traditional ‘Gendered’ Jobs are Being Flipped” demonstrates this economic principle because it argues that gender norms have been apart of society and influence career paths. It also argues that more recently these norms have been ignored.

 First, most of the time a gender norm is woven in to the preconceived notion of a job title. The article states that “for decades, some jobs were traditionally held by women” like teachers, nurses, or bartenders, “while others were filled with mostly men” like managers, CEOs, or chemists. Many people believed, and still believe today, that men were the only ones able to hold a high position in the workforce, while women stayed at home.

In the article, the author, Chad Brooks, goes on to say that the gender line has become blurred and roles have become neutral. Brooks claims that “23% of jobs traditionally held by men are now held by female workers” and “27% of female dominated occupations… are held by male workers”. These statistics show that adults going into the workforce are ignoring the gender association of each job. Changing role can take time, but it is heading in the right direction. Here are the careers that used to be male dominated but show women participating at higher percentages:

1. Lawyers: 48 percent
2. Veterinarians: 48 percent
3. Commercial and industrial designers: 48 percent
4. Marketing managers: 47 percent
5. Optometrists: 43 percent
6. Management analysts: 43 percent
7. Sales managers: 43 percent
8. Producers and directors: 42 percent
9. Chemists: 42 percent
10. Coaches and scouts: 41 percent
11. Private detectives and investigators: 41 percent
12. Emergency medical technicians and paramedics: 40 percent
13. Financial analysts: 40 percent
14. Team assemblers: 40 percent
15. Computer systems analysts: 34 percent
16. General and operations managers: 33 percent
17. Firefighters: 32 percent
18. Surgeons: 31 percent
19. Web developers: 31 percent
20. Dentists, general: 31 percent
21. Chief executives: 28 percent

My next research question is: Is it a personal choice or are companies discriminating genders when hiring?

Why do people purchase firearms?

Source for image

 October 2, 2017 Why Americans Buy So Many Guns, According to Psychology Experts (Peter Hess) Link for article

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways” 

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “When do people find it necessary to purchase firearms?” It helps me determine an answer because it explains how people buy guns after a mass shooting or because they do not think about the consequences of owning a gun.

 First, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that when a mass shooting happens gun sales go up. This tends to happen because people want to protect themselves for another possible shooting. It makes them realize they might not be as safe as they thought.

 Second, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that when the government or state plans on restricting gun laws, people buy them before the laws are put in action. They want to get the gun/attachment before it becomes harder to get, so they buy it now because its easier.

 Third, The article demonstrates this his economic principle because it argues that people will refuse to interpret the danger with purchasing a firearm and act out of emotion. They fail to understand that you have to maintain your gun and that it is extremely dangerous in the hands of someone who does not know how to properly use it.

 In the next blog post I will discuss about "why people purchase firearms?"

The Economics of Video Games

The economic principle I’m exploring is “People generally respond to incentives in predictable ways. ” My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How do video game companies incentivise gamers to buy their games?”

The article/video/etc published in The Washington Post titled “The Economics of Video Games” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows, how much economics is inside of a video game, how much game companies rely on economics for feedback on their games and, Economists are intrigued by the world of video games.

 First, how much economics is inside of a video games is massive. From the article by The Washington Post, ¨But there’s a flip side, too. Just as video game designers are in dire need of economic advice, many academic economists are keen on studying video games¨

 Second, many game companies rely on economics for feedback on their games. From the article by The Washington Post, they said, ¨ Nowadays, many massively multiplayer online video games have become so complex that game companies are turning to economists for help. Without oversight, the games’ economies can go badly awry… ¨ Game companies as well as economists rely on each other to keep a game afloat.

 Third, Economists are intrigued by the world of video games on a wide scale. From the article by The Washington Post, they said, ¨A virtual world, after all, allows economists to study concepts that rarely occur in real life, such as non-fractional-reserve banking, a popular libertarian alternative to the current banking system that cropped up in Eve Online¨. Economists are intrigued on what new things can be learned economically in video games that cannot happen in real life. In my next blog post I will research: The inside of a game design company

How are music producers making money?

Source: http://wyliecenter.com

BLOG POST #2 

 The economic principle I’m exploring is “Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices”

 My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How are music producers and bands affected by apps like Spotify?”

 The article/video/etc published in The New Economy titled “How does the music industry make money?” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows how people have come to expect to get music for free or little to nothing and when given the option people will always choose the cheapest option to get their music even if it is illegal. 

 First, musicians are now finding that working by performing live concerts is not as profitable due to their songs being played constantly on the radio. This means less money for the music industry every time their song is played on the radio because then people don't have to go out and buy their music in order to hear it. 

 Second, Spotify and other streaming services are working to shift people away from owning their own music and to instead rent it through the use of advertisements and subscriptions. If people rent their music instead of actually owning it then the music industry is able to bring in a more steady income and make more money over time. 

 Third, Streaming services have played a role in dramatically reducing the amount of music that gets pirated, but as a result consumers are restricted to what they can do with the content they are provided. When streaming services like Spotify provide free music, then there is not need for people to go out and obtain their music by other illegal means.  

In my next blog post I will research: How Spotify makes money

What's the Hiring Process for Animated Films?

www.johnbasmajian.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is “ Because of scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost.”

My research question to help me study the economic principle is “How do animation production project leaders
choose and develop a story idea (on a limited budget) when planning for a film to appeal best to an audience?”.
I’m focusing on the hiring process.

The article published in Harvard Business Review titled “How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity” demonstrates this
economic principle because it shows how human and physical capital are selected in animation projects according to
what will best maximize utility.

First, project leaders hire for specific ideas instead of for potential creativity. Those working on projects must not
fear risk-taking with ideas; taking risks helps best prevent repetitiveness and assure that the ultimate story told is
unique. And minimizing the inherent risk with producing unique films is accomplished by hiring talent.

Second, acquiring physical capital based on the promise of innovation and improvement is key. For example,
“Steve Jobs bought the computer division of Lucasfilm” as he saw the potential to incorporate and develop the use
of computer animation in Disney films. Jobs is today known for having promoted the success of
computer-generated animation which continues to be enhanced today.

Third, an ultimate balance is struck between hiring people versus ideas. In order to make the best use of quality
ideas, an efficient team is necessary. As Ed Catmull of Pixar puts it, “if you give a good idea to a mediocre team,
they will screw it up; if you give a mediocre idea to a great team, they will either fix it or throw it away and come
up with something that works.”

In my next blog post I will research:  How is a story idea first presented and approved? Who backs this?

The Craving for Consumerism

Source: https://sgtuniversity.ac.in

The article “The Crisis of American Consumerism” on HuffPost.com demonstrates that people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways, because it talks about how consumerist culture became huge in America mostly because the “American Dream” has changed over the years, making consumerism its top priority. So, people’s incentives are typically based on this “dream” of having it all materialistically. This has changed the incentives behind purchases from what it was in the past; making them based on a desire to fulfill some immeasurable pit towards happiness, despite increased belongings having no correlation to increased happiness.

 The article states that, “before the spirit of capitalism swept across much of the world, neither work nor commerce were highly valued pursuits — indeed, they were often delegated to scorned minorities such as Jews.” Americans had a completely different “dream” than they do now, as says this quote. They relished less in working to get what they want, and definitely less in materialism. Now, though, as income has tripled since World War ll, consumerism has spiked, because people can buy more, and therefore get caught up in it. They see others making more and buying more, then gaining more “happiness,” which in turn makes others want to buy more too. Thus, consumerist culture was born in America. The article mentions, “studies also indicate that many members of capitalist societies feel unsatisfied, if not outright deprived, however much they earn and consume, because others make and spend even more: Relative rather than absolute deprivation is what counts.” As it says, people have been trained to buy more and more to fill an infinitely deep pit inside of them yearning for happiness, not realizing that all of this materialism and consumerism plays a role in this emptiness.

 Now, as mentioned previously, people make purchases based on completely flawed logic. They make purchases thinking that new and more efficient things will make them happier, which has been proven untrue. The article says, “large numbers of people across society believe that they work merely to make ends meet, but an examination of their shopping lists and closets reveals that they spend good parts of their income on status goods such as brand-name clothing, the “right” kind of car, and other assorted items that they don’t really need. This mentality may seem so integral to American culture that resisting it is doomed to futility.” Clearly, somewhere along history it has been ingrained in our heads that specific purchases are “better,” despite the cost attached to it. Problematic as it may seem, it gets worse when the idea that this doesn’t just affect the upper class comes into play. The article says, “Consumerism, it must be noted, afflicts not merely the upper class in affluent societies but also the middle class and many in the working class.” So, many people who may not have a large income work not only to make ends meet, but also to keep up with the constant flow of new materials in society.

 You may be wondering, is there some sort of cure for this illness that is consumerism? Well, yes and no. Consumerism is definitely not great, as it plays into the emotional turmoil of Americans everywhere, but it also stimulates the economy and keeps companies afloat. So, without it, who knows what kind of society we would live in. Although, Huffington Post does get into two ways our society could “get out of” our all-encompassing consumerist culture. Basically, it would be to integrate a different sort of culture into our daily lives. Like, the article specifically mentions transcendentalism or communitarianism. Transcendentalism is putting spiritualism over all else; living religiously, humbly, and philosophically. Communitarianism is putting focus on relationships more than anything else: family, friends, etc. Both, the article claims, if spread to a wider scale, would lift us from our current values and make us less obligated to purchase, and happier in effect. Although both ideas seem bleak, as Americans are so deep in consumerism that it would take a lot to get us out of it.

 In all, the incentives behind American purchases are incredibly predictable: they will basically buy anything that companies say will make them happy, anything that seem like it will make life “better,” anything that would increase their socioeconomic image in life. This is due to our increase in income after World War ll, and the change in the “American Dream” shortly afterwards. Both turned our focus onto materialism that has only enhanced as time went on. Now, we are stuck in a never-ending pit of consumerism. The question is: how did companies react to this change in culture and help it grow? We shall see in my next post!

Cop.Flip.Invest

Souce: https://www.gq.com

The economic principle I’m exploring is “ that people gain when they trade voluntarily, and because of scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost. My research question to help me study the economic principle is “What social trends have led to the increase of demand for Supreme clothing?

The article published in GQ titled “Can Selling Supreme Make You a Millionaire” demonstrates this economic principle because it shows how marketing and the use of technology has allowed buying and reselling supreme to be potentially a profitable business, especially for millenials.

 First, the article states that the people buying supreme aren’t doing it to be more stylish, they’re doing it because “it’s about reselling the destined-to-skyrocket rarities for a profit.”  In today’s society people want to make money as fast and as easily as they can, the Supreme resell market offers the perfect opportunity to turn quick profits.

 A company based out of Canada names Wealthsimple has put a billboard in New York reading “"Cop. Flip. Invest," and it's a marketing move… aimed at making the whole investing money/saving for your future thing easier for millennials.” Legitimate companies have seen the opportunity to make profits, and are recruiting a young workforce ready to make money. Companies advertising to an eager workforce adds to the social stigma that reselling Supreme can be and is a legitimate market. 

But it’s not as easy as companies like Wealthsimple would have you believe.  As Jake Woolf the author of this article states “the professional-grade Supreme flippers of 2017 aren't standing on the sidewalk with crossed fingers; they're using bots and hackers to check out from Supreme's online store within seconds of a major collection's drop, eating up all the supply and, in turn, creating their own demand.” Because Supreme only has a limited amount of each item, and “professional-grade Supreme flippers” are buying up most of the product, the group that Wealthsimple is marketing to is left with just scraps of the profit.

In my next blog post I will research: Why are people willing to pay 2 or 3 times the original price of the original item? (Does the trade mutually benefit the buyer)

What should institutions do to increase alternative energy dependency?

metering.com

KEY ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES I’M ADDRESSING:

Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices

OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION:

What should institutions like the EPA, Congress, energy industry, and schools etc

do to increase alternative energy dependency?

SUB QUESTIONS

What laws have been enacted to promote alternative energy?

How do schools educate in order to promote green energy?

What incentives do individuals have to increase usage of green energy?
What can private and public sectors do to enrich alternative energy?

RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH:
Bentham ; Energy Fair   ridsnepal

Making Money from Music

http://www.breadalbane.pkc.sch.uk

KEY ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES I’M ADDRESSING: The economic principle I will explore is people gain when they trade voluntarily and people generally respond to incentives in predictable ways.

OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION: "How can a musician be successful?"

SUB QUESTIONS

• "What incentive is there for people to buy music legally?"
• "does society value larger amounts of simple music or smaller amounts of good music?"
• “Is the high demand for music for music decreasing the quality?”
• “How do musicians make money if people illegally buy it?”

RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH:

• NPR
• Smithsonian

How is the Music Industry Making Money?

SOURCE: Spotify.com

KEY ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE(S) I’M ADDRESSING:

Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices

OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION:

What changes will the music industry try to make now that there is almost always a

free alternative for getting music?

SUB QUESTIONS TO HELP ANSWER OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION:

How do free music apps like Spotify make money?
How much money is the music industry losing from songs being pirated or obtained by other means?
How can consumers be persuaded to buy their music rather than finding a free alternative?
How does this affect music producers and the bands that create the songs?

RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH: The New Economy, Investopedia, Forbes