Real Estate, The Economy, and News: America

Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2016

Alphabet to Surpass Apple as "World's Most Valuable Company"

For years, Google Inc. was always known for its internet/computer science businesses, including its online search database, maps, advertising platform, YouTube, Android, and more. In recent years, Google began investing more and more time, effort, and money in other kinds of technologies. From healthcare devices to drones to self-driving cars, Google has had its hand in many types of technological innovations. Unfortunately, that led to a somewhat unwieldy business model, in which every product/ technological focus was grouped under the single title of "Google." Paresh Dave and Andrea Chang discuss in their L.A. Times article how Google recently underwent a business shift and created a new corporation, Alphabet Inc., within which several subgroups focus on different realms of Google's technological goals.

Not only has the creation of Alphabet Inc. made the business more structured, it also has generated plenty of investor interest. In fact, according to Dave and Chang, Alphabet Inc. is well on its way toward claiming the position of "world's most valuable company" from competitor Apple Inc. In the fourth quarter, Alphabet showed that profit had grown by double-digits, and proved to investors and the world that projects like self-driving cars and virtual reality glasses were not wasting resources, but instead earning revenue. Where analysts expected Alphabet to earn $16.9 billion, the company surprised everyone by reporting $21.3 billion in revenue, an improvement of 18% over the course of two years.

Last summer, when Google first began changing to the Alphabet structure, the company aimed to separate online ventures from those involving physical technological innovations. Each of the individual units of Alphabet is designed to have flexibility over its own budget and operations, but in the end, Alphabet itself will keep watch over each sub-business and make the major business decisions. Certain ventures labeled as "Other Bets," which include YouTube and smart-thermostat maker Nest, had a loss of over $3 billion in 2015, which was to be expected, according to Alphabet's analysts. Loss is expected during the R&D stage of technological innovation, but executives believe that the loss is at an acceptable level based on predictions of future revenue.

Alphabet's momentum seems almost unstoppable. In the past year alone, Alphabet's stocks have risen more than 40% in total. On the other hand, Alphabet's major competitor, Apple, is having plenty of problems that have led their stock values to fall. As mentioned previously, much of Apple's recent troubles have been closely linked to the company's reliance on a single product: the iPhone. Since iPhone sales have gone down, Apple's stocks have taken a plunge. Alphabet's new business model will help to reduce the chances of a similar situation taking place, since the variety of sub-businesses means that even if one sub-business has trouble, it will have little effect on the company as a whole.

Overall, economic analysts believe that Alphabet will keep improving and that its stock prices will continue to increase. Executives have seen continuous increases in the number of users of Gmail and the Google Play Store. They also expect that advertisements on Google and YouTube will be very important for Alphabet's future revenue. Since Alphabet's creation, revenue rose nearly 14% and profit for the year rose by 16%. In the past year, Alphabet also added over 8,200 new employees. As you can see, Alphabet seems very confident about the company's future growth and is planning accordingly.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, February 5, 2016

Apple's 1984 Super Bowl Commercial - A Marketing Marvel

Each year, millions of Americans spend their weekends watching football games. Some go to stadiums, where they can experience it first-hand, while many others watch the games on television, from the comfort of their own homes. No matter how they're watching the game, the National Football League (NFL) is making plenty of money from their viewership. Last year alone, the NFL's 34 teams brought in a total of over $7 billion in revenue. Of that total, hundred of millions of dollars came from one game in particular: the Super Bowl. This revenue comes from a combination of ticket sales, merchandise sales, and, most of all, advertisements. Michael Hiltzik discusses, in his L.A. Times article, the Super Bowl and how its advertising goals have changed over time.

Several estimates claim that, depending on several factors, the Super Bowl's host city can gain up to $100 million in extra revenue during the week of the big game. Between money spent on hotels/motels/Airbnb rentals, money spent on tourist attractions, and increased spending at restaurants and other such establishments, the Super Bowl provides a huge amount of income for local businesses. Yet, the largest portion of Super Bowl income has to do with advertisements by big-name companies like Apple and Coca-Cola. At the 1984 Super Bowl, Apple Inc. aired a commercial that was so successful that it set an expectation for all future Super Bowl commercials.

Apple's commercial was a pull-out-the-stops production, directed by Ridley Scott (who had previously directed "Alien" and "Blade Runner") and starring Anya Major, a British actress and discus-thrower. The commercial, which was championed by Steve Jobs, made Apple's CEO, John Scully, doubtful, yet eventually was approved and made its way to the television screen. The commercial itself was greatly influenced by George Orwell's novel, 1984, which depicts a dystopian society. The commercial concludes with Major's disruption of Big Brother's Stalin-like speech and announces: "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" This appeal to nationalism and patriotism called to many Americans and the commercial came to be known as one of the most successful of all time. You can watch the full commercial here.

Given the millions of people that watch football each year, it makes sense that companies would want to take advantage of the large audience to advertise their products and services. Since the NFL knows how much each time block is worth, they charge a high price to those who want to advertise during the game. Everyone benefits from this relationship: advertising provides companies with a larger consumer base, which creates an opportunity for more sales and greater revenue, and the NFL makes money selling airtime to advertisers. The Super Bowl especially creates this opportunity, as over 100 million people watch the game, many of whom aren't even football fans.

The aforementioned 1984 Apple commercial is considered by many to have been the trigger that got many people interested in the Super Bowl for more than just football. When the game is half over, the Super Bowl has its famous half-time show, in which a popular musician or other artist puts on a performance while the players take a short break and regroup. Even more popular to viewers are the long-awaited Super Bowl commercials, which are expected every year to surpass Apple's amazing 1984 commercial, and yet never quite succeed. In fact, there are viewers that don't care about the game at all, but instead watch it in order to experience the game's half-time.

While no company has yet to produce a commercial with nearly as much fame and success as Apple's 1984 commercial, viewers still watch the Super Bowl every year, in hopes that the half-time commercials will amaze and inspire as they did before. Advertising during the Super Bowl has become a marketing standard, a sign of a successful business. Even though IBM's personal computers eventually took over a large portion of the home and office markets, Apple's success in business is nothing to be scoffed at either. Maybe this year's commercials will be able to emulate Apple's marketing success? There's only one way to find out.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, October 16, 2015

Young Adults: Halloween's Growing Demographic

While Halloween was once considered to be mainly for children, statistics show that it has become a major consumer holiday, celebrated by plenty of Millenials and young adults. In fact, it is expected that this year, American will spend approximately $6.9 billion on Halloween and everything it entails. James Peltz, in his L.A. Times article, discusses how spending on such festivities has increased drastically over the years.

It is expected that over 157 million Americans will be participating in the festivities this year. Whether that includes purchasing candy to pass out to trick-or-treaters, or carving a pumpkin and wearing a costume, consumers will be spending a lot of money on their night of fun. The average price per consumer will be around $74, dramatically up from the $48 they spent a decade ago.

Spending, while high on Halloween, is still nowhere near the level during holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Mother's Day, etc. However, for some businesses like costume shops and amusement parks, Halloween provides a significant portion of their yearly revenue. Most of the pumpkins grown in California are used for Halloween, thereby providing a reliable source of income for farmers in the San Joaquin Valley.

Some costume stores like Party City and Spirit Halloween open specific stores only for the six weeks preceding the holiday, thereby getting the most bang for their buck. Even though Party City has year-round stores, Halloween is their biggest season, bringing in about 25% of their annual sales. Even "Knott's Scary Farm" and Six Flags' "Fright Fest" have been known to encompass 15% of the total number of visitors to each amusement park in a given year. American consumers spend over $2 billion in candy alone per year. Generally, Halloween has become very profitable for an array of different kinds of businesses.

Even while consumers reuse decorations and costumes purchased in past years, they can't avoid spending on perishable items like food, candy, and fresh pumpkins, Research has even found that as involvement in social media has grown, so too have holiday-related costs. People share costume ideas via Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, alerting friends to sales at certain stores. Even more so, young adults, especially Millennials, tend to participate as a group, purchasing matching costumes and attending themed parties, all of which can be shared around the world by social media.

Peltz sees that nationwide spending on the festivities has doubled in the past 10 years. He believes that it is quite likely due to the technological era in which we live. As new devices and new movies/television shows enter our world, we have so much more to use in the celebration. Sure, kids are still participating in the holiday, but Peltz shows that Millennials make up the largest proportion of participants, and he believes that this trend will continue to hold true for many years to come.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, September 25, 2015

Grocery Chain Haggen's Bust May Have Little Effect on Competitors' Prices

Grocery chain Haggen Inc., which spent approximately $1.4 billion last year in a dramatic expansion along the West Coast, was forced to file for bankruptcy this month, undoing everything it had accomplished over the past several months. While Haggen believed that its buy-outs of several dozen Albertsons, Vons, and Safeway supermarkets would help the Northwest-based company grow, in Shan Li and Andrew Khoury's L.A. Times article, it is explained why their business plan may have been flawed from the start.

According to experts, Haggen's purchases were doomed to fail from the beginning. Not only was the cost of purchasing and converting 146 supermarkets of various brands remarkably high for the 18-store chain, but Haggen's prices were seen as too high for the quality of produce being provided. According to the founder of DJL Research, a research firm specifically for supermarkets, no one believed that Haggen had any chance of success with their large acquisition.

Analysts go on to claim that Haggen's prices were determined too much by the prices already in place at the purchased supermarkets. Instead of doing their own research, they chose prices similar to those of rivals like Albertsons or Safeway. Haggen is known for its higher quality meats, seafood, and organic produce, which would normally be reason enough to qualify higher prices than their competitors'. However, complaints from customers seemed to all point to less than fabulous service and produce of lower quality than advertised.

Perhaps the lack of proper business planning in the stores was due to the stresses Haggen experienced because of the buy-outs. Albertsons, one of the former owners of some of the stores, broke off their tenuous business relationship shortly after the purchase. Albertsons opened lawsuits against Haggen, stating that $41 million worth of inventory had not been paid for, and in response, Haggen sued Albertsons, claiming that the competitor was consistently working behind the scenes to push Haggen out of the market. Perhaps Haggen's legal struggles interfered with its ability to run its newly obtained markets properly, Now that Haggen plans to pull back and keep only its 37 stores in Washington and Oregon, its reputation for high-quality may one day be restored.

For the over 8,000 Haggen employees in California alone, the bankruptcy will hit hard, The Local 324 United Food and Commercial Workers Union is rightfully upset, especially after having filed recent grievances against Haggen for layoffs and reduced hours. For others in the community who do not work for Haggen, however, economic analysts and regular shoppers alike do not expect to be affected by the closures. Since there is enough competition going on in the community, between Ralphs, Wal-Mart, and other stores, they believe that prices will not likely rise significantly. Who knows? In the end, perhaps Haggen will earn enough money from the sale of the closed stores to get back on their feet in their Northwest home base.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, August 7, 2015

Changes to FCC Regulations May Help Reduce Robocalls

The National Do Not Call Registry, run jointly by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, was designed to be a way for consumers to avoid sales calls. Unfortunately, due to new technologies, so-called telemarketers have found ways to go around As Jim Puzzanghera discusses in his L.A. Times article, most people dislike receiving annoying and commonly fraudulent phone calls on a daily basis, which is why the FCC has proposed new regulations that could help consumers only receive the calls that they want.

The agencies receive about 150,000 complaints per month about robocalls, but there's not much they can do about it. Once your number is on the Do Not Call Registry, telemarketers are, in theory, not allowed to call you. However, as witnessed by many on the list, these calls still come through. By using internet-based phone numbers or routing calls through other countries, telemarketers are able to circumvent the law and contact those on the Do Not Call list. Until recently, consumers had to tell callers, in writing, that they no longer wish to receive sales calls. Under the new regulations, the calls can be stopped by asking the telemarketer "in any reasonable way at any time" to stop.

In addition to making it easier for consumers to stop sales calls on their end, the FCC's changed regulations will allow and encourage telephone providers to offer robocall-blocking tools to their customers. While robocalls can be annoying to those receiving them, they can also be costly. Some calls and texts rack up charges on a monthly phone bill. Many times, phone providers keep a significant portion of the fees charged by such third-party message services, a practice that has led companies like Verizon and Sprint to court in recent months. If the calls and texts were blocked in the first place, such charges would not be an issue.

Under the new rules, even if a company had previously received written permission from the owner of a phone number to make sales calls, the robocaller has to stop immediately once they find out that the phone number has changed ownership. In this way, the new owner will not have to be bothered by calls that were authorized by a previous owner. The new rules, however, apply to certain companies and not to others. For example, computerized calls from banks or hospitals are allowed if they are designed to help the consumer. Calls about possible fraudulent activity on a credit card or about medication refills are not considered"robocalls" in the classical sense by the FCC.

While law enforcement is working toward catching illegal telemarketers and putting a stop to some of the sales calls. the FCC believe that the most sensible way to stop the calls is directly at the source. If phone providers were to offer to their customers the variety of new services available to block such calls, consumers could at least avoid calls from the most notorious telemarketers. Some lawmakers worry that the new regulations could be harmful in that they prevent surveys and demographics studies from being performed on the general public. On the other hand, many consumers find survey-takers to be just as annoying as telemarketers. Altogether, these regulations could be a way to give consumers what they want. Stopping illegal calls and making consumers happy are the top responsibilities of the National Do Not Call Registry, and these new laws may help them fulfill their purpose.

***************************************************************************************************

Monday, July 20, 2015

Foreign Purchases of Some American Businesses Face Government Examination

7/20/15 - The Committee on Foreign Investment, an agency through the United States Treasury Department, is responsible for deciding whether to approve or deny any attempted purchase of an American company by a company based in another country. Some such buy-outs are simple and easily approved. Others, like the purchase of Micron Technology Inc., as discussed by James F. Peltz, in his L.A. Times article, require much more discussion and consideration.

The Committee on Foreign Investment only tends to take issue with purchases when they may affect national security. For example, in 2005, a major Chinese oil company called CNOOC Ltd. made an offer of $18.5 billion to purchase Unocal Corp., a California-based oil company. Politicians took issue with this proposed buy-out because they feared that foreign ownership of the American oil provider could possibly cause major problems for the future of American energy security. Eventually, due to complaints and protests regarding the deal, CNOOC Ltd. decided to retract its offer.

More recently, another Chinese company, Tsinghua Unigroup Ltd., has reportedly been preparing a $23 billion offer for the purchase of Micron Technology Inc., a major manufacturer of dynamic random-access memory chips. While Micron claims that no offer has been received yet, Peltz’s sources believe that the deal may not go through anyway, even without interference from the Committee on Foreign Investment. Micron’s stock prices in December were at $36 per share, and while those prices have dropped throughout the year, analysts still believe that the expected offer of $21 per share will not be enough to convince Micron to sell.

Were such an offer proposed by Tsinghua Unigroup and accepted by Micron, it is unlikely that the sale would be approved without a struggle. The Committee on Foreign Investment would have to come up with some pretty compelling reasons to grant approval for a state-owned Chinese country to gain control of one of the only major American producers of memory chips, found in so many devices from smartphones to personal computers. Memory chips are everywhere, in the public sector and in the government, and the change in ownership could pose a security risk, especially after the large number of recent cyber-attacks that have been traced back to China.

Having spent over $200 billion, last year alone, on importing integrated circuits, China, like other Asian countries, wants to become more independent and work on developing its own network of memory chip production, rather than continuing to purchase from America and other countries. Unfortunately for them, they will probably not achieve this goal through a purchase of Micron. Between the Department of Defense’s responsibility to protect national security and Micron’s high stock prices, it is more than likely that this Micron deal will end the same way as Unocal Corp.’s did.

***************************************************************************************************

Friday, May 29, 2015

Potential Issues Caused by Inflation Indexing

5/29/15 - The national minimum wage was first created by Congress in 1938, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It was developed to protect workers and ensure that they receive some standard level of pay for their hourly labor. The FLSA banned child labor, set a maximum workweek of 44 hours, and made the minimum rate of pay 25 cents per hour. As inflation has made prices for everything else increase, the minimum wage has increased as well, to its current $7.25 per hour. Many states, however, have their own minimum wages, with some as high as $9 or $10 per hour. In a very controversial decision among business owners and economists, the Los Angeles City Council recently started drafting a plan that would raise the minimum wage annually, raising it to $15 by 2020 and even higher in years to come. Tiffany Hsu and Andrew Khouri, in their LA Times article, address the debate over the wage increase, describing the points made on both sides of the argument.

Raising the minimum wage has always been a difficult undertaking. Through this plan, the minimum wage would go up automatically in response to inflation, which would benefit workers. Unfortunately, inflation also makes rent increase, which will make it more difficult for entrepreneurs, especially owners of small businesses, to be able to afford the higher wages. This would force them to either raise prices or lay off workers. However, prices can only go so high before consumers go elsewhere to make their purchases. This will affect the small businesses most drastically since larger businesses have more flexibility to lower prices without losing as much profit. This competition could potentially lead to a clearing of the market, forcing small businesses out.

This procedure, called inflation indexing, seems to be working well for the twenty-or-so localities with their own wage policies, according to UC Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. Inflation indexing allows the wage to respond directly to increases in the cost of living, without the need for intervention by policy-makers. In an ideal sense, indexing would increase the wage in a gradual manner, rather than shocking the system with large spikes. Int his way, businesses could adjust more easily to changing costs and respond accordingly. Still, consumers and business owners are wary.

Richard LoGuercio, the owner of Town & Country Event Rentals, would only have to raise wages for about 100 of his 430 workers under this policy. However, he fears that he will have to raise wages across the board to keep everyone happy. If minimum-wage laborers are receiving $15 or more per hour, everyone else will want to be paid more for their contributions to the business. As wages increase for the lowest-paid level in a company, wages in the higher levels will likely increase proportionally, which would force price increases and contribute to inflation. Thus, raising the minimum wage continuously in response to inflation could turn into an endless cycle of wage increases.

All in all, the major effects of the minimum wage increase will come down to the actions of consumers. Businesses could lay off workers in response to their increasing costs, but in the end, they will have to raise their prices. Consumers are only willing to spend so much before they decide that a product just isn't worth it. So, as long as consumers are willing to spend a few extra dollars per product, the effects of the wage increases may not be so bad.

***************************************************************************************************

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Santa Monica Council Bans Short-Term Rentals

5/20/15 - Hundreds of property owners, especially those living in vacation destinations, rely on the income that they earn when they rent out their homes, condominiums, or spare bedrooms to short-term visitors. Because of new laws passed in Santa Monica, these individuals may find themselves struggling to find tenants. Tim Logan, in his L.A. Times article, discusses the implications of Santa Monica’s law banning short-term rentals.

Tourists who come to places like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco are not generally there for a month at a time, but that is what this law will require. The law, in an effort to deter short-term renters and protect the hotel industry, bans rentals that last less than 30 days, and force individuals renting out a room to pay extra taxes similar to those paid by hotels. This, however, is not to say that the Santa Monica officials are only interested in protecting hotels. The council claims to be introducing these regulations in response to the complaints of annoyed neighbors and advocates for affordable housing in the neighborhood.

Home-sharing, the term given to the practice of renting out a room for a short period of time, has grown exponentially over the past few years. Websites like Airbnb, on which people post their rental listings, have become the place to look for anyone needing a place to live, albeit on a short-term basis. According to Logan, the home-sharing industry is booming and unlikely to slow down anytime soon. Profits are large and demand is high, so even with the new laws, people will likely find some way to keep doing what they are doing.

Some people providing housing through Airbnb are entrepreneurs, managing multiple residences and earning money left and right. Others are elderly and retired, who rent out their apartment when they go out of town to visit family. They encompass two ends of the spectrum, but both feel the same way: the regulations need to be changed. Many understand that home-sharing should be regulated to some extent; they just believe that an all-out ban is the wrong way to do it.

While some people fear that similar laws will be proposed in cities other than Santa Monica, Logan believes that the spread will be limited. Usage of online platforms like Airbnb is hard to keep track of, which is why the government may be afraid of its continued progression toward becoming an integral part of society. Logan recommends wariness when doing business with anyone, but especially with strangers met online. Some feel that laws and governmental oversight would reduce risks. Others believe that the government getting involved would just create hurdles and reduce profit. It's hard to tell which side is correct. Santa Monica may be the guinea pig that the rest of the country needs to test these risky waters.

***************************************************************************************************

Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Maintenance Issues at California's Refineries Lead to Gasoline Price Increase

5/1/15 - Drivers throughout California have been noticing gas prices climbing swiftly over the past few weeks, and they don't like it. In the last week by itself, prices have gone up by almost 34 cents, 6 cents of which happened over the course of a single day. Is this due to the state of the economy, or to supply-and-demand, or due to something much harder to control? Samantha Masunaga and Andrew Khouri, in their L.A. Times article, conclude that the increasing prices are mainly due to mechanical issues in gasoline refineries around the state.

California's refineries produce most of the gasoline used within the state, since production and delivery of California's “cleaner-burning blend” can be too expensive for out-of-state refineries to consider it economically viable. Furthermore, since the refineries produce as much gasoline as possible, any break in the production chain can cause massive issues throughout the system. Even if one factory would have to close down for repairs, the amount of gasoline in California would fall, making the available gasoline that much more expensive. The system leaves very little room for delays.

Unfortunately, refineries have been forced to stop or lessen production in order to perform maintenance work, whether planned or otherwise. After a February explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s refinery in Torrance as well as some other, minor, issues elsewhere, the supply of gasoline is running low, thus forcing up the prices. Although the oil-refining companies are producing less, they still have contracts that obligate them to provide a certain amount of gasoline to customers, such as gas stations. In order to do this, they are forced to pad their supplies with purchases of gasoline from other refineries.

Many are upset about the price increases mainly due to the shock of it. When the price of a tank of gas increases by $20 to $30 in a month, it is hard to see it coming. To make matters worse, companies that purchase gasoline from other refineries during a time of low production try to keep such transactions secret, so as to not case a “pop” in the market. On the other side of the argument are the average Californians, who use gasoline and want some way to be able to predict when prices will go up. When a company has to purchase gasoline from another refinery, it is pretty obvious that they are having some issue with production.

The average person has had to cut down on certain “unnecessary” expenditures in order to put more money toward filling up the tank. Some have been forced to cut items when grocery shopping, and others have stopped eating out at restaurants. While gasoline prices are still, on average, below what they were this time last year, some areas are feeling far worse effects. A big cause of this, as Khouri and Masunaga point out, is that the market full of secrecy. If people know when companies are planning to purchase large amounts of gasoline from other sources, they will be able to more easily predict fluctuations and therefore plan out their gasoline purchases in a more beneficial manner. Gasoline has almost become like stocks, constantly changing and difficult to predict successfully. That could all change if refineries develop some transparency and give customers a fighting chance.

***************************************************************************************************

California Employment Rates Rising, Mainly Due to Temporary Jobs

4/24/15 - While California's Inland Empire suffered many of the harsh consequences that came with the housing market crash, its economy has been coming back over the past few years. The Inland Empire currently contains one of the fastest-growing job markets in the state, aided mainly by growth in the logistics sector, which involves transportation and storage of goods. While jobs have indeed been added, and unemployment rates thereby lowered, Chris Kirkham's L.A. Times article points out that this growth may not actually be the significant shift it appears to be.

As the ports have gained more use in previous years, Riverside and San Bernardino counties have joined the supply chain of international trade. Strategic locations in these counties have become “inland ports” for goods traveling throughout California and to the rest of the country. The Inland Empire, on the other hand, has plenty of affordable land, which has made it the place for warehouses, in which goods are stored until they get shipped out.

Inventory, transportation, and warehouse jobs accounted for 1 in 5 new positions created in the Inland Empire last year. Job growth is great, but these are not of the ideal type to help the average worker and the economy. Positions in this industry usually pay minimum wage, do not include health benefits, and provide no guarantee as to the number of hours an employee might expect to work in any given week. So, while employees are provided with some source of income, they lack job security and can never be fully prepared to adjust to the ever-changing demand for workers.

Temporary jobs like those in this sector have increased by 35% over the span of 5 years, growing faster than almost any other industry. While such jobs are difficult to keep, Kirkham shows that some who work quickly and efficiently are able to climb the corporate ladder and move from positions of warehouse laborer to inventory manager or sales representative. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, companies care more about precision and speed in order to cut inventory costs. This has caused warehouses to be more like short stops between the factory and the customer, rather than long-term storage spaces for goods.

The logistics industry is a necessary part of international and domestic trade. Goods need to be transported, sorted, and kept track of. The industry needs support, but so do the workers. Kirkham concludes the article with the following claim: the workforce is struggling. What changes might be made to keep the industry thriving while also helping laborers to gain some semblance of structure and continuity, rather than uncertainty and worry?

***************************************************************************************************

Major Theater Chains Face Investigations Into Anti-Trust Violations

4/17/15 - Competition is a necessary part of economics. Without competition, a company or group of companies could gain control of a market and charge outrageous prices for goods and services, against which consumers may have no recourse. When competitors arise, such companies are forced to lower prices since consumers will be able to choose. As supply increases, prices must decrease, or the companies risk allowing demand to decrease.

A monopoly is when a single company gains complete control of a market or commodity. A cartel is when a group of companies have control over the market and agree among themselves on what prices to set. A trust is a group of companies that work together to force other, usually smaller, companies out of the market. Each of these is regulated by the federal government and is prevented as much as possible, so as to allow smaller companies the ability to be economically competitive. In his article, Richard Verrier looks into recent investigations into anti-trust violations by several major movie theater chains like AMC, Regal, and Cinemark.

Many complaints and lawsuits have been filed over the years by owners of smaller theaters, who claim that the major theaters have been involved in a practice called “clearance,” in which the smaller theaters are prevented from playing newly released movies. Is this practice considered a violation of anti-trust laws, though? While a Supreme Court decision in 1948 required that movie studios give up ownership in movie theaters, larger theaters still have the financial clout necessary to have some control over where popular movies will be played first.

Thus, the Department of Justice's anti-trust division has been spurred into action in an attempt to determine if clearances are against federal law. To the large chains, it's simply a matter of economic reasoning. The film studios have the supply, and the movie theaters have the demand. If a company like AMC wants a specific movie from the studio, it will effectively be providing more revenue to the studio, because the purchase of the film will involve hundreds of theaters across the country, while the purchase by a small company like IPic Entertainment will only involve a dozen or so. The studio will be more willing to give in to AMC's requests, because AMC provides more business.

With the Department of Justice on the case, we can assume that the matter will eventually be settled. The conclusion of this argument, however, could mean big things for small businesses. If the DoJ concludes that the major theater companies are not breaking any laws, then the small companies will be at a distinct disadvantage. If the DoJ rules that the major companies are breaking anti-trust laws through the use of clearances, then governmental entities may get more involved in economic issues that are out of their jurisdiction. What will it come down to: the natural order of economics, or the imposed order of government regulation?

***************************************************************************************************

Longshore Unions Provide Rich Benefits for Members

3/20/15 - If you were asked to list some types of people with jobs that pay over $100,000 per year, you might mention doctors, lawyers, and software engineers. Would you think to name dock workers? While many transit employees throughout the West Coast have been laid off or have seen their wages cut due to a recent increase in global trade, longshoremen (the laborers who move goods from the ship to the shore) have generally been able to protect their wages. In their article, Chris Kirkham and Andrew Khouri investigate the ways by which half of longshoremen on the West Coast make over $100,000 per year.

Not only do these many of these longshoremen make about $20 per hour on the low end, they earn even more on overtime and night shifts. It all comes down to the power of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. As witnessed during last month's shutdowns up and down the West Coast, those who control the ports seem to control international trade. Even now that contract negotiations have been completed and the ports are open once again, it is predicted that the docks won't be back to normal for up to three months, and many businesses may never get back the money they lost during the port closure.

Although many members of the longshoremen union make well over $100,000 and all members receive free healthcare benefits, union spokesman Craig Merrilees claims that there are thousands of “casual workers” who are unable to get full-time work and don't get the benefits provided for union members. Merrilees states that these workers often spend years, without such benefits, trying to become a member of the union. Unfortunately, the Pacific Maritime Association, through which the wage statistics for union longshoremen were received, refused Kirkham's and Khouri's requests for the wage statistics of non-members, so Merrilees' assertions could be neither confirmed nor denied.

Longshoremen and the ILWU have a kind of monopoly on the ports. Not only did the port union leaders successfully create a contract in 1930 that linked most of the West Coast ports together, the unions have over the years been able to negotiate for better pay and benefits in the midst of technological improvements. Even the advent of such innovations as shipping containers, which require far fewer workers to transport, have led to better pensions and richer buyouts for those workers who are laid off due to the new technology.

The ILWU knows how to work the system. That appears to be how longshoremen are making so much money in a field where most workers make $10 - $11 per hour. When billions of dollars worth of goods pass through a set of ports each year, those people working the ports control the goods. The unions seem to be able to negotiate whatever contract they want, because companies need the ports in order to have any kind of international trade.

Slowly but surely, the unions may be losing their control. As computers systems and machines come in and replace employees, especially those doing clerical work, the unions may have trouble keeping benefits and high wages. While goods can be produced in other countries, and manufacturing can be easily outsourced, ports are a constant, unable to be moved somewhere with lower wages. Despite this, Kirkham's and Khouri's sources are confident that the high wages in the current low-wage transportation industry will not last. It's only a matter of time before technology and innovation force a change.

***************************************************************************************************

Decreased Chinese Demand Harmful to American Exporters

3/6/15 - Labor strikes at ports on the West Coast and the current strength of the American dollar are both contributing greatly to exporters and other businesses that rely on exports. However, Don Lee claims in his Los Angeles Time article that China's slowing economy is causing even more damage to the American market. The strong dollar is not a good thing for most exporters because it makes their products more expensive overseas, in their target market.

While the U.S. economy as a whole seems to be pretty steady, many worry about the effects of significant Chinese withdrawal from American imports. Last year, American exports to China grew only 1.6% while American imports from China grew 5.7%. This trade deficit is bad news for scrap-metal exporters in California, Midwestern manufacturers, and cotton farmers in the Mississippi Delta.

As China's economic growth slows, amid increasing production around the world, China is forced to reduce foreign imports and focus instead on domestic businesses. Even American companies with locations in China are finding it difficult to compete with private Chinese contractors. Fortunately for America, the decrease in trade with China is being somewhat balanced out by increased exports to other countries, including Mexico and Canada. Trade, which has been involved in about one-third of America's economy in recent years, has started to become less-viable as an economic practice.

China is switching from a majorly goods-based economy to more service-based, and according to some of Lee's sources, this may not be a bad thing. Yes, it will have negative effects on businesses and companies reliant on imports and exports, but as a whole, the American economy does better off with services, like finance, accounting, and entertainment. Such service-based businesses are affected to a much lesser extent by the strength of the dollar, which is beneficial for everyone involved.

Besides the slowdown of China's economy, the Chinese president has been cracking down on corruption, forcing government officials to cut back on gifts and parties. Because of this, exporters of such products as fine wines and premium fruits have lost a sizable number of their usual customers. A combination of the new strength of the dollar and an increase in productivity by many countries has driven the prices of commodities down, which could hurt goods-based economies.

According to Lee, the export of agricultural products by California fell 9% last year, due greatly to China's changing economy. Farm shipments on their own plunged by 30%, and other products like grapes and nuts felt dramatic drops in price. The economy as a whole seems to be holding up, but it looks like it is just a matter of time before we are forced to make changes to our economy, or face devastating consequences.

***************************************************************************************************

Costco - American Express, Partnership to End in 2016

2/20/15 - For years, American Express was the exclusive credit card of Costco shopping centers throughout North America. Costco's most recent contract with American Express is set to expire in March 2016, and the companies have been unable to come to a mutually beneficial agreement for renewal of that contract. Costco Wholesale Corporation has since announced the upcoming split, and according to an article by E. Scott Reckard and Dean Starkman, of the L.A Times, Costco is close to finding a replacement as their sole credit card provider.

Since Costco only accepts one type of credit card, customers are forced to either pay via cash/check or use that type of credit card. This gives that credit card company a huge amount of business, since shoppers at Costco generally buy products in bulk and don't usually carry enough cash to pay for such a large quantity of goods. One of the big reasons for Costco's break with American Express, according to Reckard and Starkman, is a desire for lower swipe fees. If Costco, or any other company for that matter, is able to get cheaper rates from one credit card company versus another, they will almost always choose the one with lower prices.

Even though the partnership with Costco accounted for about $94 billion in revenue for AmEx, analysts state that based on Costco's new terms, the economics did not make a renewal the sensible move. Some of that money comes from interest on pending credit card balances, but the vast majority comes from actual spending by credit card holders.

Over the years, in an attempt to keep up with other companies, AmEx has offered rewards, special deals, and even lower fees, which has kept it relatively competitive. Unfortunately, AmEx's stock has been on a decline recently, a trend which has not been helped by the upcoming break with Costco. On the plus side, American Express claims that it has plans to reinvest in other companies, as well as to focus on its current partnerships.

The split is having a far worse effect on American Express than it is on Costco. Costco pretty much has the ability to choose its own rates, since the company that gets the partnership will be gaining much more business. A year ago, Costco switched to the Capital One Master Card in its Canadian branches, and has felt little ill effect from it. The only issue seems to be customers' reactions. How difficult will it be to change cards? Would it become easier for shoppers to simply pay in cash, which might reduce the benefit to the new credit card company? Only time will tell.

***************************************************************************************************

IRS to Undergo Changes Regarding "Structuring"

2/13/15 - The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for making sure people pay their taxes. As such, the IRS has many procedures they follow to uphold federal laws. Unfortunately, some of these procedures are flawed in that they can lead to unfair treatment of law-abiding taxpayers. In a recent Los Angeles Times article, the process by which the IRS deals with a practice called “structuring” is addressed.

Under federal law, all bank transactions over $10,000 have to be reported to the IRS. This law is meant to help federal officials catch drug dealers and money launderers. However, it is possible to avoid reporting all transactions to the IRS through “structuring,” by which large deposits are split up in such a way that less than $10,000 is deposited at any given time. The reason structuring is illegal is the assumption that the only people who would need to hide their income from the IRS are those earning money through illegal avenues. It is this practice on which the IRS has been cracking down in past years.

If a trend in your financial history shows many such deposits, which seemingly correspond to a structuring scheme, the IRS has the authority to seize your accounts, with no charges filed, for years on end in some situations. It hardly seems fair.

According to IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, 60% of the 200 or so cases per year are not pursued by the owners of the seized accounts. This leads many to conclude that those individuals were in fact involved in illegal money practices, which could show that the practice is successful in some respects. But, what about the other 40%?

The problem with the current system is that the IRS doesn't need any proof. They don't have to know that the account holder is doing anything illegal. They just have to see that many deposits of less than $10,000 have been made in any given account. In many cases, there is very little for the law-abiding account-holder to do in response, to try to get their money back.

Some deposit smaller amounts into their accounts so as to not carry around large amounts of money between their place of business and the bank. Others simply make deposits at given times, and happen to deposit less than $10,000 at any given time. No matter what the reason, under current IRS practice, accounts can be seized under mere suspicions of possible wrongdoing. Some victims of the system eventually get their money back, but not after plenty of wasted time, stress, and legal fees.

Although the current way in which structuring is addressed has its major flaws, Koskinen assures the public that changes will be made. Congress and the IRS are working together to make sure that taxpayers are treated fairly, and to make sure that accounts will no longer be seized as long as the money in those accounts was earned legally. Although the changes may take some time to fully come to bear, it appears that when these changes are complete, the IRS will have lost some of its ability to seize money without reasonable cause.

***************************************************************************************************

Hackers Gain Access To Anthem Database

2/6/15 - Over the past year, several major retailers, including Target, Home Depot, and Michael's have been victim to the cyber-attacks of hackers. The most recent target on a lengthy list of such data breaches was Anthem Blue Cross, a major health insurance provider. Chad Terhune discusses the consequences of this hack in his article in the Los Angeles Times.

While Anthem states that hackers did not gain access to credit card information and health records, they were able to access much more. From name to date of birth to Social Security number, it appears that these hackers now know most of the personal information belonging to up to 80 million individuals who have health insurance through Blue Cross.

The sheer amount of personal information gathered by the hackers is enough to be quite certain that identity theft is a likely outcome. The personal information could be used by the hackers or others to open new lines of credit, or possibly even to access and empty existing accounts. Anthem warns any who have had coverage in the past and any who are currently covered by Blue Cross to keep a watchful eye on their financial accounts, in case identity theft is the main goal of these hackers.

One of the more upsetting parts of this situation for many is the fact that the stolen information wasn't even encrypted. It's bad enough that the databases got broken into, but a lack of encryption on the stored information means that cyber-criminals have easy access to the data within those databases. In fact, Anthem was even forced to pay a fine of $1.7 million in connection to allegations by the federal government that a weakness in their security left clients' personal information open to attack. Why hasn't Anthem learned its lesson?

Anthem, along with many other companies, need to develop better safeguards and protection mechanisms to make sure that only authorized parties are able to access personal information. For a company as large as Anthem to have left data unprotected multiple times in less than two years is just irresponsible. Sure, there are hackers that can make their way past any defenses, but better protections will at least slow them down, maybe even enough to stop some of them altogether.

This is a crucial time for Anthem, due to the thousands of people trying to enroll in coverage under the Affordable Care Act. They will have to be very careful dealing with this issue, in order to convince their clients not to look elsewhere for a health insurance provider. While Anthem has dealt with the attack through the proper channels, by contacting the FBI immediately, most people would still be more comfortable trusting the large company with their information if Anthem underwent a massive overhaul of their security systems. Such a project could prevent future breaches and make all involved parties much happier.

***************************************************************************************************

Plunging Gas Prices May Not Last Long

1/30/15 - Drivers throughout the state and the country have noticed the recent decline in gasoline prices and are hoping that this trend continues for as long as possible. While gasoline was over $3 in most areas a year ago, the cost of gasoline is now at $2 or even less, a nice change for everyone filling up at the pump. Unfortunately, says Don Lee, in his article in the Los Angeles Times, these low prices are unlikely to last long. In fact, he predicts that they will begin to climb within the next few months.

Lee first addresses the main question: why did the oil prices fall in the first place? One of the main answers involves development and usage of new technologies. A somewhat new process called hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” has become increasingly prevalent in the industry for use in forcing extra oil out of otherwise dry wells. Furthermore, the development of shale oil techniques, which allow for the conversion of organic matter within rocks into synthetic fuels, helps to increase supply.

Following the laws of supply and demand, the increased supply will likely lead to increased demand. This increased demand can give producers of gasoline a reason to increase their prices, which is why Lee expects the price of crude oil to be back on the rise before the year is half-over. Lee does admit, however, that it is possible for prices to stay low, if oil production continues to increase. Otherwise, waning supplies would force prices higher, just as they have done in previous years.

Reduced gasoline prices could have dramatic effects on economies around the world. Countries that produce and export oil, like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, are likely to suffer because reduced prices mean less income. On the other hand, countries that don't rely on the export of crude oil, like the United States, Japan, South Korea, and China, are predicted to benefit because they pay less for the crude oil they import. Also, their citizens will pay less for gasoline, and will have more money to contribute to the economy in other ways.

Some states in the U.S. Will benefit more than others. Similarly to the situation in the global setting, oil-producing states like North Dakota and Texas will be harmed by low prices, while other states, and the companies within those states, will be unhurt. In fact, the low prices could even lead to an boost in job growth. Even with increases in employment, lowered gas prices could be disastrous in the long run. A lowered price of gas could lower prices for all commodities, which could force the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates. Inflation is a huge risk when dealing with drastic price decreases.

Lee concludes that the huge quantities of oil being produced in Saudi Arabia, which is another factor in the price decrease, may be an attempt by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to force the United States out of the picture. If Saudi oil prices stay low enough for long enough, it could become economically illogical for the United States to continue producing via shale and fracking. Whatever the true reason for the decline in prices, people are enjoying it for however long it may last.

***************************************************************************************************

Each Year, Thousands Mistakenly Declared Dead

1/23/15 - How would you feel if the Social Security Administration and the world's top credit reporting companies proclaim you dead? Well, about 1,000 people per month are mistakenly declared dead by such organizations, leading to a great amount of stress and wasted time in order to reverse such decisions. In his L.A. Times article, David Lazarus describes the tale of George Sledge, a 58-year-old man who has been forced to file a lawsuit in an attempt to force the credit reporting companies to bring him back to life.

While many of the mistakenly listed individuals on Social Security Administration's “Death Master File” are there due to typographical mistakes and other such human errors, a sizable number could be avoided by simple fact-checking on the part of the credit reporting companies. Besides the amount of time you might spend convincing and arguing that you're is still alive, there are much worse consequences.

One such consequence is in regards to your credit score. When anyone is marked as dead, their credit score is automatically set to zero. While this helps to prevent identity theft, it also makes it impossible for a someone like Sledge to get a loan or sign up for a credit card, or even, in some cases, get a job. Furthermore, credit reporting companies have databases full of information that they sell or share with other companies. When someone has been declared dead in one database, it is almost as if they have been simultaneously declared dead in all other databases.

So, even if a person like Sledge were able to get a single company to take him off of the “Death Master File,” all of the other companies would still have him marked as dead. To go through the same rigorous process with every possible company would be straining, if not completely impossible. So, what could an individual in Sledge's position do?

Lazarus suggests that everyone should keep a close eye on their credit information. There are ways to report incorrect information, and if such information is found, you should take care of it sooner rather than later. Most of all, though, Lazarus states that these errors would happen much less often if companies would do their due diligence. A simple phone call might be enough to prevent a living person from being mistakenly marked as deceased, and that could make all the difference.

***************************************************************************************************

Where Have All the Workers Gone?

1/16/15 - Unemployment rates have been found to be decreasing throughout the country. The labor force participation rate, on the other hand, which shows the number of people working or not working, rather than just those classified as “unemployed,” has also been shown to be on a downward slope. So, what causes the seeming paradox between these two measurements. According to Michael Hiltzik, in his Los Angeles Times article, this discrepancy is due to a significant number of “missing” workers: those workers who are not working, and at the same time are not considered “unemployed.” Where have these so-called “missing workers” really gone?

How is it possible for both participation rates and unemployment rates to go down? Some economists believe that this phenomenon is due to a lack of effectiveness in current governmental policies meant to create and fill necessary jobs. Such economists theorize that the extreme difficulty many people are having in finding work has led them to stop searching altogether, to drop out of the labor force completely. Hiltzik, on the other hand, disagrees with this conclusion, preferring an alternative explanation.

Hiltzik presents sources in the article that seem to show that up to three-quarters of the perceived decline in participation rate is actually due to such factors as the retirement of baby boomers and the enrollment of workers in universities and other institutions of higher learning, both of which have little to do with the state of the economy. Over the past few decades, participation rates have been steadily declining, for both men and women. Statistics show that as the economy improves, the participation rate should improve as well.

Whatever the reason for the current employment trends, it is evident that the economy needs to get better. Hiltzik concludes his article as such: while the participation rate is declining, there is still room for it to recover. Workers may be out of the labor force due to the Great Recession, or lowering wages, or a variety of other possible reasons, but as the economy improves, workers should return.

***************************************************************************************************

Labor Force Participation Rates Declining

12/19/14 - To the average observer, it would appear that California’s economy is steadily recovering. Unemployment rates are down, and new jobs are being introduced at a constant pace. Yet, in Tiffany Hsu’s L.A. Times article, it is revealed that the labor force is much smaller than it may seem.

Unemployment rates are measured based on the number of people receiving unemployment benefits from the government, not necessarily based on the number of people actually without work. Once someone has given up and stopped looking for work altogether, they are no longer considered “unemployed,” since they no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. So, “unemployment rates” tend to be quite misleading.

According to Hsu’s sources, the more accurate measurement of the labor force’s stability is the “labor force participation rate” – the number of people working or actively looking for work in proportion to the number of working-age individuals in the population. This, compared to the “unemployment rate” is more accurate in that it takes into account individuals who have given up on finding employment. The currently falling labor force participation rate has dramatic implications on the state of the economy.

A drop in the participation rate could mean that the jobs available are not the jobs people need. For many with college degrees and experience in well-paying fields, a plethora of jobs in the fast food industry means very little. Even for those who are willing to “lower their standards” and accept jobs for which they are “overqualified,” like a barista or salesperson, such positions have so much competition that the odds of gaining employment are slight. In the end, many individuals simply prefer to stay unemployed rather than risk losing such government benefits as Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance.

No matter what the reason, a decrease in the participation rate can’t be a good thing. With more seniors continuing to work well into their sixties and seventies, and new graduates looking for work straight out of school, only so many positions are available to recently laid-off workers. If higher-paying positions are unavailable in California, job-seekers will look elsewhere for employment, and that can have consequences.

While a decline in unemployment rates may seem like a positive sign, Hsu shows why this positive impact is limited. Statistics are misleading, but the bottom line is this: we need to get people back into the labor force. The state has been creating new jobs, but mainly in lower-paying fields. Workers, especially those with college degrees, want to work in jobs “worthy” of their skills. Thus, to bring the workers back in, the creation of better jobs must be a priority.

***************************************************************************************************