Fees aren't Taxes? Right.......

       Great, the government has decided to charge us more for flying. But it's okay, because they're user fees and not taxes. They're not the same thing. Right? Wrong. They're just calling them user fees in order to make us feel like they're better, but in reality, the purpose of user fees is to raise revenue. Isn't that what taxes are? Nice try, government.
       In the article entitled Why Politicians Keep Jacking Up Taxes on Travelers, by Brad Tuttle, he discusses the increase that is to come on fees paid at airlines. Politicians believe that this is the best alternative to raise revenue instead of having to create new taxes. However, just because new taxes aren't created doesn't mean that the "fees" aren't taxes or that we're better off. They're still making citizens pay more, but have a thin argument to defend it.
       I find it interesting that politicians think that we are going to be tricked by calling them fees. It's almost a little insulting that they think we're that stupid. And I also don't understand why they constantly have to add fees to everything to "raise revenue." Why do we have to increase revenue all the time? As far as I'm concerned the government isn't handing out benefits left and right. So where is the money going? Why do the citizens have to pay more in order to fund whatever sort of spending the government is doing? It's so unfair. I know that I'm only seventeen, and so my knowledge of government programs and all of that is limited. But I don't think that there has been any sort of upgrade in what the government provides for us. And if that's the case, then it doesn't make sense to have to increase the revenue. It does make sense that the government is probably using money to pay for unnecessary things and now needs more money, and where else would they get it from than from us?
        Regardless of what the situation is, I do not like this. I think the government should find a better way to get money. One that doesn't involve taking ours. It's not okay for them to decide what to do and where to spend and then use us as funding. And by the way government, calling taxes something else doesn't make them not taxes.

Who Would Choose A Doll Over An iPod

In an article on Time.com titled The Hottest Holiday Toy Is not What You Think, Brad Tuttle talks about how the greatest source of income this holiday season is no longer toys. For awhile now our society has been getting more and more tech savvy. This happens to also extend to children. They’re no longer sitting and circling all the toys they want in a Toys ‘R Us catalogue like they used to. 

I remember when I was younger every holiday season there was a specific toy that I wanted to own. The most expensive one that I ever got was a doll called Amazing Amanda. I’m pretty sure my parents payed almost $100 for it. Now, paying that much money for a doll seems so outrageous. But, at that time the doll was very advanced in technology because it could recognize voices and her face expressed different emotions. After that doll though, I started asking for gadgets instead. First I asked for an iPod, then a digital camera, a laptop, a cellphone, and so on. Like this article states, kids today are more fascinated with being connected to the internet or involved on magical adventures in their video games. It wouldn’t make sense for them to pick plastic  toys that they have to pretend are alive when they can fight a battle virtually or connect to Twitter or Facebook.

Recent statistics show that the second greatest source of revenue on holidays is in fact electronics. The first one is gift cards. This makes me wonder whether this is how things will be from now on. I know that with fashion it’s sort of a cycle and that styles that were in ten years ago become popular again in the future, so is it possible that could happen with what kids ask for on Christmas? My best guess is that won’t be the case. Our society is constantly pushing for more and more technology. There are apps for everything, internet connection basically everywhere, even teachers use social media for assignments, so it wouldn’t make sense that we’d regress. And so, perhaps the days of the “hottest new toy” are in fact over forever. Now the market is practically monopolized by Apple products and gift cards. 

I would never have imagined that at the short age of 17 I’d have a preconceived idea or memory of Christmas, but our society changes in such a short amount of time that some of my younger relatives won’t ever understand the concept of paying $100 for a doll.

Well Played, Amazon

        In the article entitled Better Add Extra Box of Printer Paper to Your Cart, Because Amazon Just Made It Harder to Get Free Shipping, written by Brad Tuttle, the new business strategy that Amazon is employing is described. I think it’s a very smart move that is being made. At first I thought, how stupid to increase the minimum price for free shipping, but once I read further I changed my mind.

        The thing that makes this a smart move is that by increasing the minimum price, customers could potentially be influenced to sign up for Amazon Prime, which costs $79 per year and gives you unlimited streaming access to 41,000 movies and TV shows as well as access to 350,000 books, and unlimited two-day free shipping. Sure there are many perks to signing up for Amazon Prime, but you have to pay an annual fee. However, like the article states, if people sign up for it then they will also feel as though they should get their money’s worth and will buy more items online, in turn giving Amazon an even bigger profit. So, this is kind of brilliant on their part. Whether the consumers are getting just as much from the deal depends on the individual. If the consumer doesn’t shop online very often then it shouldn’t be that big of a deal paying for shipping if they buy something that is less than $35 and don’t qualify for free shipping. If the consumer buys online all the time but rarely for less than $35 then it doesn’t make sense to get the membership. And if the consumer buys online a lot but usually for less than $25 then maybe it’s best to upgrade to Amazon Prime.

        Regardless of what the case is, Amazon is likely to come out the winner in this affair. Chances are that consumers will keep buying anyway, and might even upgrade. I think that this is honestly a very smart move on Amazon’s part. Even if consumers complain about the change, they will have to buy things online, and if they have used Amazon for a long time, they will most likely stick with it.  I know this is true because I went through something similar with the DART. The prices increased, and it was really annoying, but I had to ride it anyway. I had no other choice, and my options were to continue paying for the individual tickets or to buy a monthly pass. Either way, the DART still got money from me. 

Seriously Government, Get it Together!

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past two weeks then it is not news that the United States government is shut down. That is a whole other issue though, what Brad Tuttle talks about in his article Three Parts of the U.S. Being Hammered Economically by the Shutdown is how the shutdown has affected certain areas economically. 

The first place mentioned is Southern Utah. Utah is the home to many national parks and monuments, which happen to be funded by federal money. Due to the government shut down these parks and monuments have been closed and off-limits to tourists. For a state like Utah, who makes most of it’s money from tourists visiting these parks, this shutdown has been extremely inconvenient and problematic. 

The other two areas mentioned in the article are Fayetteville, North Carolina, a military town, and Greater Washington, D.C. I find this to be extremely infuriating. First of all, the reason the government shutdown was because people in Congress couldn’t come to an agreement and decided to be stubborn and immature. Thanks to their inability to settle affairs with maturity and levelheadedness, many citizens are suffering the consequences. This is extremely unfair and pathetic.

It’s no secret that other countries judge us constantly. It’s natural to compare your country to others and see what’s better and worse in which one. This shutdown is not making America look good. We always seem to become involved in affairs in other countries, acting like a big brother, trying to help out and bring peace and whatnot, but when our government can’t even come to an agreement on something so simple, that doesn’t speak well about us. No one is going to take a country seriously when they can’t even solve their own problems without throwing a tantrum.

I believe that this shutdown is embarrassing, unnecessary, but also incredibly unfair to the citizens of the United States. Most American work hard for most of their life and they actively contribute to society. So how is it fair that the government can’t even return the favor? It’s not fair for people to lose their source of income because the of the government’s incompetence. It’s not fair for people to be at their wits end simply because certain people are too selfish and stubborn to approve health care for everyone. It’s not fair for people to lose money because people in the government are so selfish and greedy. I may be an American citizen, but at the moment, that’s not something I take pride in. 

Paying Thousands to Watch A Ball Being Flung Around

Sports are universal. They are something that happen everywhere and that help unite people. In one way or another everyone ends up involved in sports at some point in their life. It can be as a player, a coach, a mascot, a cheerleader, someone who watches the games, and so on. The point being, sports are something everyone wants to be a part of. Now, everyone is aware that to participate in any way you have to pay. Whether it’s for uniforms or for tickets, chances are that you’re going to dish out some cash at some point. According to an article in Time.com written by Brad Tuttle, entitled ‘Freaking Ridiculous’ NFL Stadium Seat Fees Cost Thousands- But Fans Pay Up, sometimes the price can be quite high. 

It seems as though the new thing to do when it comes to charging sports fans, is something known as PSL’s, or personal seat licenses. These fees start from $10,000 and go up to $150,000. These fees don’t include tickets, they must be paid by anyone who wants to buy season tickets. So, you’re paying so that you can pay, basically. The crazy thing is, that as incredibly absurd as this sounds, people are still doing it. A Vikings fan was quoted as saying, “I’ve just been a part of the experience for too many years to let it go away, and sit at home and watch it.” To me that is just ridiculous. These fees don’t make sense, no matter what anyone says, but they exist because people are willing to pay them. I’m willing to bet that if fans refused to pay for them and stopped buying tickets for at least a season, there wouldn’t be any choice but to get rid of them. 

I can understand that sometimes it seems sacrilegious to break tradition. I can understand wanting to continue going to games because it’s just the way that things have been. And of course I can understand enjoying going to games and having that experience. However, I’m not sure that a tradition is worth $150,000 dollars, not including tickets themselves. It’s just not the way that things work. The world is changing and so I know that things will not cost the same as they did twenty years ago. But, that doesn’t mean that people should have to put up with an incredibly high increase in the prices of recreational activities. As the consumers we have the power to change things. We don’t have to just go with what is dictated and pay the amount that we’re told we have to. If we take a stand, the prices will change, because if we aren’t buying, who will? 

We Need More Cars!!! Or do We?

       According to an article in Time.com written by Brad Tuttle, entitled Automakers Don’t Have Enough Cars to Keep Up with Buyers, car dealerships sold a lot of new vehicles in the last month. In fact, they would have sold more but they didn’t have enough cars. This is rather surprising, considering the average vehicle purchase price was $31,252. There is really no good explanation for why there has been such a demand for cars when the time to buy is not the best. Right now, the lack of cars and the high demand means that the dealers are less likely to bargain.

       However, for those that are patient, the time may be coming. Because of the high demand in this last month, it is possible that dealerships will get more new cars. If the demand decreases once the cars are at the dealerships, they will have no choice but to sell them at a lower price. 

       I don’t understand this to be honest. Everyone is always complaining about the bad economy and how times are hard and how gas is so expensive, etc. Yet, the statistics show that people are buying new cars left and right. That just doesn’t make sense. I don’t know what is prompting people to buy right now. Perhaps it’s because the people that are buying haven’t bought new cars in a long time and their last one gave out. Or maybe, they got a raise and therefore could afford it. This also makes me wonder whether this is good or bad for the economy. On one side, it could be good because people are actively buying and more money is flowing. On the other hand, if the people that are buying these cars do it in payments and then they fall behind, that isn’t good. 

       This leads me to believe that perhaps people end up in debt because they buy on impulse thinking they can afford things but then they end up not being able to meet the payments and when they least expect it they’re in too deep. This brings me to another question. I wonder if the people who are buying these cars are middle or upper class. If they’re upper class then it makes sense that they would buy even when it’s not the best deal. They can afford to do so. However, middle-class citizens work hard for their money and I would expect them to take better care of it. Ultimately, regardless of who is buying, cars are in high demand at the moment. I’m curious as to how this will progress.

More Jobs=Higher Unemployment. Wait, what?

       You would think that because of the creation of new jobs there would be lower unemployment, but according to an article in The New York Times it’s the opposite. The reason for this is that people are only considered unemployed when they are actively looking for jobs. An increase in jobs means that there is more hope for people to find one and therefore more people are looking. I find this to be very interesting. Does this mean that if a place has a high unemployment rate it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a lack of jobs?

       The article also states that due to the increase in jobs that are available there is more “optimism in the economy.” It’s rather ironic that a rising level of unemployment isn’t negatively affecting the attitude of the citizens. I don’t understand why it is that people are only classified as unemployed when they are looking for jobs though. If a person is not contributing to society economically then they should be classified as unemployed, in my opinion. When I hear unemployed I think of someone who doesn’t have a job, including people that aren’t looking for one. 

       This makes me wonder who was the one that came up with this way of counting things. There has to be a reason for why this is the way things are. My theory is that maybe it had something to do with getting benefits from it, sort of how when they were writing the new constitution the delegates wanted to count the slaves as part of the population in order to get more representation in the government, but not when it came to being taxed. I’m probably way off, but that’s what I think.

       The article also mentions that in New Jersey last month there was a loss of jobs and yet the unemployment rate decreased. I really don’t understand that logic. Does that mean because there were less jobs available then less people were looking for a job and therefore weren’t considered unemployed? This really is a puzzling concept to me. I wonder if everything dealing with economics is this complicated. Maybe the reason this is all so difficult to understand is because there are so many variables when it comes to calculating data, especially with money and how it travels. If I knew what numbers were used to calculate certain things and why that is I’m sure this would all make more sense. 

This article, entitled New York City's Jobless Rate Increased to 8.6% in August Despite Hiring Gains, was written on September 19, 2013 by Patrick McGeehan and published in The New York Times