The Oz-onomics Podcast

The Effect of Climate Change on Our Future and Our Economy

This podcast discusses the effects climate change has and will have on us and the economy. Not only has climate change caused warmer temperatures, but it has also caused extreme weather conditions which has caused a lot of damage. The hotter temperature we've experienced had caused a number of issues such as a decrease in supply of wheat, rice and maize. There will be a decrease in supply and an increase in the demand as our population is projected to increase. What can we do to fix this?

Podcast by: Brooke Sherwood

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hi everyone, my name is Brooke Sherwood, and in this podcast, I will be discussing the effects climate change will have on our economy in the future, such as scarcity and a diminishing supply. It is no secret that we are going through a climate change, as we have been hearing about it for quite some time now. Some people don’t think that it will affect us anytime soon, and some don’t want to believe in it at all and are in denial. However, climate change has already started and there are measurable gross domestic product (GDP) impacts on our market. You may be wondering what climate change has to do with the economy and economics, and that is the purpose of this podcast. Let me start off by explaining what climate change is. Climate change is a consequential long-term change in normal patterns of average weather of either a region or the entire earth over a long period of time. Many have heard more about global warming than climate change, and they are sometimes used interchangeably. However, global warming is one of many side effects of climate change. Now I will discuss the effects climate change has already had on us. The global carbon dioxide emissions increased to 1.7% in 2018, which is the highest it’s been since 2013, which has escalated the effects of climate change. The hottest four years that have been recorded were 2015-2018. This rise in temperature due to climate change had caused sea levels to rise 3 inches in the last 25 years from melting ice, which will only get worse. The climate change has also resulted in extreme weather effects like droughts, fires and storms. Since 1980, these weather effects have doubled. Over that same time period, floods have quadrupled. There has been an increase in the spread of infectious diseases due to hotter and wetter conditions. These conditions have increased the percentage of tickborne diseases in the United States. These damages from these extreme weather effects have negatively affected society and the economy in many ways. There has been immense amount of property damage and it has affected economic output materially. There was a loss of $79 billion in global insurance resulting from natural disasters in 2018. Also, in 2018 the United States faced an annual loss of $240 billion. This number is estimated to increase by 50% within the next decade. There are many factors that contribute to scarcity from climate change. The warmer temperatures we are experiencing are increasing the amount of crop pests which has decreased the supply of wheat, rice and maize. Studies have shown that there will be water scarcity in 60% of wheat-growing regions in a few decades. This will lead to a drop in things like the production of cereal, which right now is around 20% of the caloric intake by humans. I don’t know about you, but I love my cereal. The countries that will mostly be affected are the United States, Russia, and the European union. These regions are already experiencing a scarcity of 15%. It was determined by scientists from numerous countries such as the United States, The Czech Republic, Austria, China, Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom that even if we were to significantly cut down on the carbon dioxide emissions many of the wheat growing areas will still be affected by a severe drought. It has been found in studies that for every rise in global temperature by one degree Celsius, there will be a 4-6.5% decrease in global wheat production. Unfortunately, there is not much of a crop replacement for wheat as the alternatives require more water to grow. This will greatly affect us as there is a projected increase of 43% in demand for cereals. This shortage in supply globally will result in an increase in global food prices. So now supply is decreasing, and demand is increasing. The melting of the ice glaciers due to climate change will also have a large impact because the glaciers provide the world with three quarters of the world’s freshwater. Some areas such as China, India, and Other Asian countries rely on them for drinking water and for irrigation water. In order to produce a single person’s daily food, around 2,000-5,000 liters of fresh water are needed. Also, employment has significantly decreased in agriculture. It is projected that by 2050 the world’s population will increase by 2 billion and so the demand for food will also increase. With a decrease in supply of food and an increase in demand, how will we feed all these people? An increase in prices as a result of the decrease in supply will also affect many because not everyone will be able to afford the new prices. So, when will we wake up and realize that climate change is real and already affecting us? We have already started taking some minimal precautions. But more needs to be done and more people need to be more environmentally conscious. Climate change effects more than just the weather, it effects so much more than that, our economy being one of them. It is about time we start worrying about it.

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

 

Oily Problems

Iran's attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil production. The damage it did and what it means to us (the United States ) and what it means to Saudi Arabia. This effects more than one economy. It will be a mission to get things back up and running and it is still unsure how they will recover from this major loss. They were already empiercing a lot of changes that was leading to economic fragility, this was just the feather on the camels back.

Podcast: by Shanette Lee

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hi, my name is Shanette Lee and today I'll be talking about the oil attacks on Saudi Arabia. September 14 at around 4:00 AM Saudi Arabia's kingdom's crown jewel was attacked and on September 18th the Saudi defense ministry declared that the attack was unquestionably sponsored by Terryn due to the fact that they put on a display of drones also cruise missiles to demonstrate that they were of Iranian origin. The attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities knocked out 5% of global oil supply and sent oil prices soaring. Saudi Arabia is the 12th largest country, but that 5% was very detrimental to Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon has announced the deployment of thousands of additional troops to enhance the defense of Saudi Arabia. We were affected by this attack, but not too much because we have other people that we get our oil from. We have other affiliations. About 5.7 barrels per day amounts to the 5% of global oil supply, which means that they definitely knocked out half of the countries or productions and it could take months before Aramco, which is the name of them could fix the damage. This attack caused a shift in the supply curve to the left, it has caused prices to surge. The attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities delivered a shock to the kingdom at the moment of economic fragility. They are experiencing economic fragility because of their attempt to jumpstart non oil industries. They were Struggling and foreign investments were down as well. Saudi customers who benefit from government jobs and other perks fueled by the wealth from the oil Sales were also struggling to absorb the introduction of sales tax and the reduction subsidies in electricity, water, and fuel. So this happened at the worst possible time. Not that anytime is good, but there was already much going on that had to be fixed. Economists had downgraded the country's economic growth on lower oil prices this year as a country needs prices above $80 a barrel to balance their budget. A sunk cost situation definitely occured. All the oil loss and damage that was done cannot be undone. Therefore, it is a major loss. There are certain things that can happen that you can repair or at least find a way to catch up, but these are not. This is not one of those things. A lot of damage was done. A sunk cost is the money that has already been spent in which cannot be recovered. Some costs are excluded from future business decisions because the costs will remain the same regardless of the outcome of the decision. Meanwhile, the energy price shock resonated through global markets. It drove up the shares and energy companies on the prospect of higher profits. While stock exchanges across Europe plunged into the red as the inventors took fright over rising geopolitical tensions, the Saudi oil techs have triggered the steepest crude market price surge in 30 years and this inflicted fear for the global economy. So this means that not only do they will have to deal with this, but it is affecting a bigger economy than just their own. This led to the biggest jump in global prices since 1988 by wiping out 5.7 million barrels, oil market analysts claim prices concerted towards $100 a barrel in the coming weeks if and when the middle East, tensions lead to renewed disruption in the “strait of Hormuz” which is a transit route for the world's oil tinkers, so this also would affect us even though we are in communication with other oil suppliers. A lot of them take this route to get the oil to us. There's no doubt that the result in price increase will be a boost for any oil producers, particularly for the United States shale producers who have been one of the worst performing sectors and the S and P 500 and are under the microscope .It's still too early to tell what the credit impact will be and it will largely depend on how long and how much all production is down and off the market. Closing prices have an effect as well too. It's crazy to think that all the Wars and problems in the middle East have been about the same thing and lasted for so many decades.

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Scare-City 2

A border wall does not work in 2019 America. Immigrants cannot steal jobs, someone has to give it to them, willingly.

Podcast by: Erin Geraghty

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

ERIN: Are illegal immigrants stealing our jobs? Are Americans too lazy to do the dirty work? Who are the real illegal immigrants anyway? In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue to find the Americas, but they were already inhabited. Fast forward a few 100 years and Native Americans, otherwise known as indigenous people, make up less than 2% of the country that white colonizers corrupted. One of the biggest reasons I've heard about cracking down on immigration is that immigrants are stealing our jobs. How can a person steal something that no one is after? Immigrants make up a huge portion of harvesters, farmers and construction workers, more or less by dirty job? Please point me in the direction of the American 25 year old who's willing to scrub toilets for $13 a day. If anyone needs to be cracked down on it's the big bosses willing to pay illegal immigrants basically pennies rather than providing a real salary with benefits and insurances. Anti immigration is inherently racist. Most arguments against that I've heard our anti Mexican immigration not rushing our Canadian. It should be easier for immigrants who are already in this country to become citizens rather than being found out and deported. The US has not passed a major immigration reform legislation since the Reagan administration. Those are policies that date all the way back to the 1960s. Pro growth, immigration reform can raise economic growth as well as GDP per capita. It should be noted that immigration saves lives. immigrants are not always running to something a lot of times are running away from. Some countries have just been extremely corrupt governments and they need help. The United States has set itself as a pinnacle of opportunity and hope. But what are we saying to the rest of the world if only white people are allowed within our country's borders. Trump wants to withdraw from the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. He doesn't see how his selfishness will corrupt Our foreign affairs and almost hand over the title of world's largest economy to China. The Secure Fence Act he wants to impose makes us seem untrusting and in turn makes the United States seem untrustworthy. It's been stated by the Washington Post that every fewer migrant in the United States as a result of the Secure Fence Act, GDP has declined by $30,000. And ironic enough, almost 50 people have come out in the past year admitting that they're illegal immigrants who have been hired by Trump or administration personally. You he will start to deplete the economy and force us to be completely self sustaining. Will that mean jobs in the United States, of course, but we don't have the same Natural Resources other countries have been able to provide for us? Well, Mexico will have a seriously difficult time acquiring petroleum, and we'd have to find a new source of oil. To add to this is so called wall the term wants to build is projected at $21.6 billion. This will cost at least $15 per American. He says this would increase lower skilled workers wages. But in reality, it would only increase wages by 58 cents. income of higher skilled workers like college kids like you and me, would fall by almost $8. Finally, the United States lose more than $4 billion a year. He's claiming that Mexico will pay for the wall. But what world would another country graciously pay for something so insulting and demeaning? Next heat, they are going to pay us back for the law? How? Where's the contract and Mexico said that they would fund our institutional racism. Finally, he says the taxpayers will pay for the wall. So what's the truth? I don't know about you. But I will not be supplying anything to help deter people from wanting a better and safer life. Not only that, it'll more or less stop any means a trade between Mexico and us and any other country that has a free trade policy. No, Mexico, no Canada, no Cuba, no anything. This only hurt the economy. immigrants are more likely to go to college and start their own business and stay out of illegal crime than a native born American. Maybe it's not that they're stealing our jobs. Maybe it's just that they're making some of us look bad. This wall doesn't work. I implore everyone to register to vote and vote for a safer Kinder country in 2020

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Perfect Competition vs. Monopoly

On this edition of Oznomics, I define the two extreme market models Perfect Competition & The Monopoly with my own version of it and the economist definition. I also mention since they don't actually exist in the real world I take a detour and give examples that come close to both extreme market models. I also define the terms, monopolistic competitions and oligopoly, as well as providing examples for them since those exist in the real world. I would then go into the similarities and differences between perfect competition and monopoly. I would then conclude the podcast by giving my thoughts on what extreme model I would prefer if I was the consumer or the producer.

Podcast by Michael Kolawole

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hi, everyone. My name is Michael Kolawole, I will be your host for today on another edition of OZnomics where Economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand, where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. Here on Oznomics, we break economics in a way you can understand, where you need another alternative to understand your economic class. Today’s Topic I will be covering the two extreme market models: Perfect Competition and the Monopoly. I will also be comparing the similarities and differences between them and what you rather have since neither of them technically occur in the real world. Perfect Competition vs. Monopoly, what would you rather have? In order to understand what you rather have between these two extreme market models one must first understand what they are and how they work. Topic 1: We first begin with Perfect Competition: If average person who don’t really to know economics were to ask: What is a perfect competition? You can tell them Perfect Competition is when any business in the world are selling the same thing, haves many competitors, but cannot influence the market. Now if you were to ask an economist what is a perfect competition? They would tell you something similar along these lines: a market structure where each firm faces many competitors that sell identical products so that no firm has any market power. They would also stress on the 4 conditions that need to be met which are: 1. the industry has many firms and many customers 2. all firms produce identical products 3. sellers and buyers have all relevant information to make rational decisions about the product being bought and sold 4. firms can enter and leave the market without any restrictions—in other words, there is free entry and exit into and out of the market. It’s also interesting to add, that when asked if a perfect competition exists in our world? You say no, they don’t technically occur in the real world due to no market truly meets all the requirements of being considered a perfect competitive market. The term is more so used to compare other markets. An example of a close perfect competition: However, there is some scenarios that do come close to a perfect market such as the agriculture market. Let’s say you wanted to grow some potatoes. Since the potatoes are homogenous they cannot be easily differentiated. Also, there’s so many potatoes around the world, that none of them people selling them have no market power. The potatoes being sold would meet the first three requirements of any firms, large number of buyers and sellers, and the sellers and buyers have all the relevant information to make rational decisions about the product being bought and sold. However, what stops from being in a perfect competition is the barriers to entry especially when considering the fact that processing companies, grocery stores, supermarkets exist with certain restrictions to follow. Topic 2: Monoplies The next extreme economic model would be the monopoly and no the game of monopoly but an actual monopoly. My definition of a monopoly is when there’s only one firm that controls the market. If an economist were to tell you what is an monopoly? They would say a situation in which one firm produces all the output in a market. Basic Conditions to be met for just a monopoly are having one firm operating in the market, having high barriers to entry, and no substitutes available. They would also tell you there is two type of monopoly which is a legal monopoly being when a laws prohibit or severely limit competition and the other is natural monopoly which is when the barriers to entry are something other than legal prohibition. In order for a firm to be considered a monopoly at least legally they would need a: patent, trademark, copyright, & trade secrets which is falls under the intellectual property. A patent is basically a legal right to make, use or sell your item for limited time. A trademark is basically a symbol/name to identify the good and once registered it’s only used by the firm. An example of this with Nike: Just Do It A copyright is basically a legal protection to prevent people from copying, using it for profit use, commercial purposes, their original works. An example of this being used would come when Facebook blocks your Live Video from going public due to music from Drake being used in the video. It’s interesting to know that the copyright last the whole person life plus 70 years. In order for a firm to be considered a natural monopoly is when they possess the economies of sale and sole ownership. Economies of sale is when firm decreases averages for the long term as the level of output increases. As with perfect competition, a monopoly does not really exist. However, there have been some examples that came to close and depending on who you ask will say that was a monopoly Example: Let’s take it back to 1880. AT&T was created and going all the way towards 1918 which was 101 years ago. AT&T service was mostly used AT&T had received a government-sanctioned monopoly for being the sole provider of phone service throughout most of the United States. Now while it didn’t cover it all which makes it fall short from being truly being a monopoly. It would just be considered a legal monopoly. In terms of the United States Department of Justice a monopoly is when one firm merely has a very high market share. Since monopolies and perfect competitions don’t really exist, is there are monopolistic competitions and oligopoly that do exist quite a lot actually. Monopolistic competitions are when many firms compete with each other, selling products in some distinctive way. For example, toothpaste brands such Crest, Colgate, Sensodyne, Arm Hammer, Aim to name a few. Since there is a large variety of him, each firm has their own mini-monoply due to brand name, style, and in this case flavor. Oligopoly is when a small number of large firms have ALL or most of the sales in an industry. For example, cell phone providers. While there are small cell phone providers like boost, simple mobile, cricket, virgin mobile to name a few. However the small number of providers that dominate are Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Similarities & Differences between Perfect Competition and Monopoly are when: Similarities being: Both face the same cost and production function and seek to maximize profit. It’s also interesting to note, that in a monopolistic competition and perfect competition there is firms compete with each other. Differences being: Perfect Competitions has homogeneous goods; Monopoly is the only producer of that good. Perfect Competition haves’ large number of buyer and seller, Monopolies has only one seller. Perfect Competition has a price competition while Monopolies have no competition to worry about. Perfect Competition are price takers, Monopolies are price makers. Perfect Competition has no barriers to enter or exit while Monopolies are high barriers entries. Perfect Competition has zero market power while Monopolies haves some sort of market power. In terms of a preference, that entirely depends on you. From a consumer perspective I would love the perfect competition because it’s many different options at my disposal to choose for a good I would want and more than likely to get a good at a lower price. However, if I’m the producer I would prefer to be in a monopoly because I’m the only one with that good and on top of that there’s no substitutes to exist so people would have to buy from me if they want that good.

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Is a College Degree Really Worth It?

My podcast discusses the benefits, and few drawbacks, or receiving a college degree. It discusses the cost versus the rate of return, along with other benefits to getting a college degree. It also discusses the benefit of a degree over going through a technical program.

Podcast by: Elizabeth Evans

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Evans, and today my podcast will be about whether a college degree really pays off. A lot of people say that a college degree is not worth the money, or the time that it takes to receive the college degree, and that you really don't make that much more money with a career requiring a degree. This simply is not true. With a college degree, you can earn a lot more money than those without a college degree. People who have a bachelor's degree generally make anywhere from $17 to $22,000 more per year than someone with just a high school diploma. People with a bachelor's degree make 84% more over their lifetime than a high school graduate. They are also four times more likely to be employed, and the unemployment rates in the United States are the lowest for those with a bachelor's degree. Although college tuition costs have risen 260% over the last 40 years, and the U.S. student debt is over $1 trillion. It is still worth getting a degree. Obviously, there are some degrees that make more money than others. So you have to make sure to choose wisely!  Many jobs now require a degree. But there are also a lot of benefits to having a degree that don't have anything to do with job requirements. Having a degree will give you access to more opportunities, not only through jobs, but also through life experiences, learning inside and out of the classroom, and job advancement at your current job. Better jobs also means access to better health care benefits with as much as healthcare costs now in the United States, it's very important to have good benefits and a really good job. Usually those supported by a degree will have better health care benefits for you and your family. If you have one piece with a bachelor's degree or higher also reported higher job satisfaction.

Again, a bachelor's degree or a higher degree can give you opportunity for more jobs in the market, or advancement at your current job. If you're looking to move up at the same company, a degree can also give you more job security. During a recession, unemployment rates are far lower among college grads. And when companies are looking to let people go, they're going to keep people with the most experience and the most education. Having any degree helps you build and maintain a professional network, both through your contacts at your school and through work. You will be happier with your work and your job selection, especially if you spent a lot of time working towards a degree in that specific field. And you can also have higher self- satisfaction because you put a lot of effort into that degree and you accomplished something that will help you for the rest of your life. The risk is definitely worth the reward and so is the cost of a college degree. Some people say  the technical training is better, it is faster and it's much more affordable. But technical professions, such as a plumber, or an electrician,  are not as in demand as college degrees right now. They also have not been proven that they make more money over the course of a lifetime. A college degree has been proven to be paid off in 12 years, sometimes less. If people want to put more money towards their degree, they can obviously pay  it off quicker than normal. If a person who has a degree worked for only 32 years of their life, which is much shorter than the average work lifetime, then they will have 20 years of solid earnings after paying off their degree. If you take the lowest amount of money, the $17,000 more a year that they earn over those without a degree. That means that they can make at least $340,000 more over their lifetime than someone who only has a high school diploma. These figures are also just for someone with a bachelor's degree, those numbers would most likely be even higher for someone with a masters or a PhD. The opportunity cost of not getting a college degree is much greater than the actual cost of a college degree. You will not have as much access to job opportunities or advancements in your current career. You may be stuck in a dead end jobs where you there's just nowhere to go and you're stuck making pretty much the same amount of money for your whole lifetime because you won't get very many raises, you will lose out on some important life experiences, as well as important benefits such as health care, and job security, which is also very important if you have a family. These added benefits that really don't have anything to do with money. Make getting a degree alone worth it. So anyone who says that getting a college degree in today's world is not worth it is definitely wrong. And college degrees really do pay off

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Show Notes

Capelli, P. 2015. Will College Pay off? - https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-college-pay-off-a-surprising-cost-benefit-analysisision-youll-ever-make/

Does college pay off? Tuition costs vs. earning power- http://www.educationplanner.org/students/career-planning/explore-salary-pay/does-college-pay-off.shtml

Knerl, L. 2018. 10 reasons why a bachelor’s degree is important. Northeastern University.

Lobosco, K. 2017. Average college degree pays off by age 34. CNN Money. - https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/09/pf/college/college-degree-payoff/index.html

Facebook: What's the Deal?

This podcast will acknowledge the ongoing issue with Facebook. Facebook, as well as other social media sites, dominate their market in a monopolistic way. Facebook currently uses its platform to push advertisements onto its consumers, which in return causes influence. This podcast will address this issue as well as the anti-trust laws that Facebook has violated.

Podcast by: Brianna Jones and Lloyd Ferguson

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hello and welcome to today’s podcast. My name is Brianna Jones. And my name is Lloyd Ferguson. Today we are going to focus on Facebook and its recent issues. This social media platform has been in hot water for quite some time now. They have violated anti-trust laws and have allowed interference with the previous election. Now we are looking at Facebook to determine if it is a monopoly. We are aware that a monopoly usually faces no competition and holds the top position in the market. However, among the younger generation, there are other social media sites that take their interest like Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. Facebook seems to be more reserved now for older adults. Although it may not seem like Facebook dominates over other social media sites, we have to look directly at the market aspects. Facebook and its creator are currently under investigation for “unlawfully using their market power”. We also have to keep in mind that although Facebook is our main focus, other companies like Amazon and Google are being considered as a monopoly. Individuals are able to create ads and different groups throughout the Facebook platform. Unfortunately, these same individuals are able to spread hate and violence. According to an article written on Quartz, “Facebook played a role in promoting hate because it is the main source of local information, essentially making up the internet there”. The there that is being discussed is Myanmar. The investigation into Facebook has proven difficult. The platform portrays monopolist tendencies, but according to certain laws, it cannot be proven definite. Facebook is also being investigated for violating anti-trust laws. We know that anti-trust laws and I quote are “a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote competition for the benefit of consumers”. Although it has been difficult to prove since Facebook provides a free service to consumers, there are been many claims against Facebook violating anti-trust laws. For example, Facebook attracted the many users it has today with the promise that they would provide the best quality of service. Consumers were promised the best quality in terms of their privacy. Consumers were led to believe that they would have the best protection when it came to their privacy. Facebook, however, uses third parties when collecting data and these third parties can use the data for any and everything. This is a violation. Users would leave the app or the site and it would follow. This means that these users were being surveillance outside of the platform. Third-party companies that were competing against Facebook were assisting with this surveillance. They were able to use them for ads where they would be reimbursed. These pop-ups and plugins that we see on Facebook from other companies are there to help promote their own services and content. Whenever someone clicked on it, these companies were able to gather more and more information about these consumers. In return, they sold the information to advertisers and made money in the end. Facebook was able to grow its power based on the lies that were given out to consumers and on the number of users they received. Facebook violates anti-trust laws and holds too much power. Since we are discussing the power Facebook holds, we must also address why people are still with the platform. Usually when an investigation is occurring, one would stay far away. So why does Facebook still have so many users? Individuals are still using Facebook for a few reasons. One, it has become a part of social norms. Social norms are very hard to get rid of, especially when hundreds and thousands of people partake in it. Two, network externalities. Network externality is the tendency of the value of certain types of products or services to increase as more people use them. The more people use Facebook, the more popular it becomes. People are more prone to follow the hype train. So, if something looks promising and has a large number of following, it is very possible that more and more people will join. This is similar to school clubs or the newest trend. So, just like a game of follow the leader, the more people who sign up for Facebook and use the platform, the more coverage it gets. The bigger it becomes. Facebook will continue to grow as long as the users keep coming. Thank you for joining us for this podcast. Bye

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Show Notes

• https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/facebook-releases-new-data-portability-tool-for-photos.html
• https://qz.com/1704143/the-antitrust-case-against-facebook/

The Aging Labor Market

The purpose of this podcast is to inform listeners of the importance of seniors to continue working to save the social security system. It discusses how seniors continuing to work will give the government more time and more funds to then fund those seniors retirement once they finally retire. The problem has occurred because the baby boomers are all retiring at the same time which means the amount of people working and paying into taxes is dramatically decreasing and the amount of people taking the benefits is dramatically increasing. Listen to this podcast to learn why we need to give incentives and encourage our seniors to continue working a little longer.

Podcast by Mallory Jennings

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hi, I'm Mallory Jennings and in this economic podcast we will be discussing the effects of retirement age on the labor market and the podcast titled the aging labor market. So you might be asking yourself what is a labor market in terms of economics a labor market is the availability of Employment and Labor in terms of supply and demand. Matthew talked to most adults, they cannot wait to retire and start collecting their social security. It's finally time for them to kick back on the beach and relax. So Social Security is a government system that provides monetary assistance to people with inadequate income or no income. Therefore, the retired would be benefiting from social security because they are have no income coming in. According to national academy of social insurance, 169 million Americans pay Social Security tax and 61 million collected monthly. You can see this is a good ratio because more people are paying into it than what's being taken out. As of 2017, retired people collect about 1300 dollars a month, depending on the assistance that they need. Many people want seniors to stop working because they can collect this social security and then open up jobs for different people that need that, for example, the younger population, those college graduates that need a job, you're opening up spaces for them or adults who maybe want a promotion. Typically, the senior population are the ones that are holding higher positions in a company because they've been there for long and certain adults are seeking those positions. However, seniors still working are helping themselves employers and our economy. tax revenues rise with them working, which makes it easier for the government to fund Social Security, Medicare and other old age programs. The baby boomers who are people born between 1946 to 1964 Our huge population, there's 76.4 million of them, and they're hitting the retirement age. This is putting a lot of strain on our social security system because there isn't enough money in the pot to pay them. If they continue to work, it gives the government time to collect more social security. And they receive less benefits for still working. So it's buying the government time to build this problem that we have. At 62 years old, you can start collecting Social Security early. But with that you are also permanently getting their social security reduce 30%. So this is a an incentive that the government has put in place to can urge people to continue working so that it's helping our Social Security system. So why are we in this economic problem? Most people are probably asking how did we let ourselves get here into this problem where we don't have enough Social Security And the reason is, is that as the baby boomers retire, the amount, they're the benefits they're receiving increase, while the people paying into taxes decrease. So a huge part of our population is retiring, they're all going to want their social security. But now we also have a lot less workers who are paying that Social Security tax out of their paycheck. Also, Americans are having fewer children than they used to, which is less people paying into those taxes, and people are living longer, which means there's more time with their social security and receiving those benefits. When social security was first implemented, people weren't living this long, and we weren't expecting to have to love them for as long as we are. In 2018 16% of the population was over the age of 65, which is the collection age for Social Security. By 2060. It's estimated that 23% of the population will be over 65, which means they can collect Social Security. That's a 7% increase which may seem small, but that's Huge in terms of our government economics. And while this is happening, the working population is getting smaller. Right now the working population is about 62% of our population. And by 2016, it's only going to be 57%. So this is really going to mess up our ratios here as the beneficiary population is increasing, and our working population is decreasing. Social Security Administration's estimates that by 2037, our social security pot will be depleted and not able to pay all the people that should be receiving it if we don't fix this, but there is hope. We still have about 20 years to fix this problem. Here's how we can do it. Increase the retirement age. And yes, nobody wants to hear this because everyone wants to retire as soon as they can. But since we're living longer, it really only seems fair. We can increase taxes so that we have more money in this pot, and we can cut some of the benefits that we're providing to people to reduce the hospital it takes to run the Social Security system. And we're incentivizing seniors to work longer, we need the labor market to stay alive to keep the appropriate ratio of worker to beneficiary. Seniors working longer so that seniors are going to work longer so that in a few years when they want to retire, there's actually money for them in that pot. And many people will argue and say, but seniors deserve to retire, they've done their service and let them sit back, enjoy life and be physically healthy. But jobs nowadays are a lot less physically demanding than they used to be a lot of jobs or desk jobs. So really, it's okay for their health to be working a little longer. And also with medical advancements, like I said earlier, we're living so much longer than we used to be. And we're so much healthier, so it's okay for them to still push a few more years because the lifespan in general is going to be longer. So to accommodate changing times in society, we need people to continue working and we need that labor market together, continue to age. Thanks for tuning in. Bye

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

The Competition Seesaw

In this podcast we discuss the nature of perfectly competitive market structures and monopolistic market structures. We talk about how an imaginary product/industry would behave in each market structure under their different conditions and with their different attributes.

Podcast by: Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff

Transcript

p>[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

K: So Gabby, tell me about your favorite market structure! G: Well Kate, I get super excited about perfectly competitive markets. What about you? K: I’ve always been a big fan of Monopolies. G: Like the board game? K: Not quite…In today’s episode, we’re gonna talk about how products and industries behave differently within different market structures. G: Great! To help explain how perfectly competitive markets operate, let’s use an imaginary product as an example. What should we call it? K: A widget! G: Classic. So let’s say I’m a seller of widgets. In a perfect competition I’m one of many widget sellers, and there are many widget buyers. Within this market, all widgets are identical. Furthermore, in this market structure both buyers and sellers have all the info they need to make rational decisions, and firms can enter and leave the market easily. K: Wow, there’s a lot going on there. How do you decide how much to charge for your widgets? G: Well, because of all that stuff I just said. My perfectly competitive firm is considered a price taker- the pressure of competing firms forces me to accept the prevailing equilibrium price in the market. K: So you don’t get to decide what to charge? G: That’s right, the only decision I have to make is the quantity of widgets I want to produce. K: And how do you decide that? G: If you think about how it would look on a graph, the demand curve for my widgets is horizontal- I can sell any quantity I choose at that market price. So to determine how much I want to produce, I need to find the quantity that will maximize my profits. K: Let’s take a second to talk about “profits”. In any market structure, profits are what’s left after subtracting a firms costs from it’s revenues. G: I’m glad you mentioned revenue, which is the money coming in. Marginal revenue is the extra money from selling one more widget. In a perfectly competitive market situation, the marginal revenue is equal to the price. On the graph, my marginal revenue curve is the same as the demand curve- horizontal. What I really need to look at is my marginal cost, the cost of producing one more widget. Initially marginal cost decreases as I produce more widgets, but then, due to diminishing marginal returns in production, they begin to rise again after a certain point. K: How do you know where that point is? G: I follow a profit maximizing rule, which states that firms will produce the level of output where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. If I produce fewer widgets than that, I’m not earning as much profit as I could be if I made more. If I produce at a higher level than the rule indicates, then the additional costs would eat into my profits, and I’d be bringing home less money. K: So that’s it? G: Wait! We haven’t talked about my favorite part of perfectly competitive markets! Efficiency! Because I produce the exact amount of widgets that society desires, and I do it at the lowest cost, without waste, my firm, and all other firms in the widget industry, are allocatively and productively efficient. Perfect! K: That’s all very nice and neat, but I say who wants to be like everyone else? That’s why I like monopolies. G: Well there’s no accounting for taste, but I’ll hear you out… K: Thank you Gabby. A monopoly is as far as you can get from a perfectly competitive market. Let’s take that same imaginary product, the widget, and assign some different circumstances. Instead of many firms, mine is the only one selling widgets, and there are no other products on the market that are identical or even similar. G: Why isn’t anyone else selling them? K: Unlike a perfectly competitive market, where it’s easy for firms to enter and exit, a monopoly has barriers to entry. There are the legal, technological, or market forces that discourage or prevent potential competitors from entering a market. There are a couple of different types of monopoly, with different barriers. There are legal monopolies and natural monopolies. In the case of legal monopolies, it’s the government that creates the barriers by prohibiting or limiting competition. A case for this might be utilities. Necessary products that are socially beneficial to have, so the government allows for a single producer and regulates it to make sure an appropriate amount gets produced. Another reason the government might create barriers is to promote innovation. Few companies would be willing to commit the time and resources required to develop new products or technology if they know they wouldn’t be able to recoup those costs. To ensure that companies are willing to innovate, the government offers protection from competition, at least for a while, for a firm’s intellectual property. Intellectual property includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secret laws. G: So if you’re the one that devoted your resources to developing the widget, intellectual property laws would prevent anyone else from selling it? K: Exactly. A natural monopoly has different barriers. One might be economies of scale, where the long-run costs of production are lower for a large firm than for a small one. This, combined with a small market size means that competition wouldn’t be profitable. G: I see, so if your widgets are expensive to produce, and there aren’t a lot of buyers, it makes sense for you to be the only widget firm. K: That’s right. Another barrier in a natural monopoly would be sole ownership or control of a natural resource. If I own the land that the world’s only KateGabbium mine sits on, and KateGabbium is required for widget production, then I’m the only one who can make widgets. G: So if you’re the only player in the widget game, does that mean that you do get to choose your selling price? K: Yes! Sort of. Monopolies are price makers, meaning they can charge any price they want, but they can’t force anyone to buy, so they’re still constrained by consumer demand for the product. G: Let’s talk about your demand curve. K: Like in all market structures, other than perfectly competitive markets, a monopoly has a downward sloping demand curve. Also, because a monopoly is the only producer in the market, the perceived demand curve is equal to the market demand. G: So how do you decide how much to sell? K: A monopoly follows the same profit maximizing rule that your perfectly competitive firm does, which is to produce the level of output where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. This looks a bit different for a monopoly though, since that downward sloping demand curve means that price needs to be considered as well. The only way to sell more is to charge less. While costs rise at a constant rate with increased output, revenue doesn’t. Therefore, a profit maximizing firm will seek that point where marginal revenue equals marginal costs, and charge the corresponding price on the demand curve. G: It sounds like a monopoly is a pretty sweet setup… for a monopolist. Let’s hear about your efficiency. K: Well…it’s not allocatively efficient. Without competition to keep prices down, a monopolistic firm will choose whatever price and quantity offers the greatest profits. Which doesn’t necessarily produce the quantity that society desires, and this results in deadweight loss. G: We’ve been talking about widgets, but what are some real products or industries that fall into these market structures? K: You’ll have a pretty hard time naming any. These structures are really just economic models to measure real-world market situations against. G: That’s right. In reality, you won’t see a market for products that are exactly identical with zero differentiation. K: Yes, and most “monopolies” you see are actually just firms with limited competition, rather than no competition. In the U.S. there is a whole body of antitrust laws to protect society from the gouging and inefficiency created by the monopolies. G: Most real life markets fall into the categories of monopolistic competition or oligopoly… K: But, those are subjects for another episode. G: I’m Gabby Schaff! K: And I’m Kate Soanes, we’ll see you next time!

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

 

Control and Regulation

Monopolies are corporations who dominate over a particular industry and are the primary supplier of a particular commodity. When they are left without government intervention, the price increases above the competitive equilibrium price which is detrimental to consumers. Anti-trust laws were put into place in order to regulate companies with too much influence over the market. This is beneficial to consumers who rely on competition to lower prices and make goods more affordable for the public. The basis of these laws is the Sherman Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act which were all established within a 30-year period approximately a century ago. They are still in effect today with slight modifications being made over time as the government adapted to changing societal conditions. Regulations imposed on corporations raise the cost of their products because of the resources being allocated to meet various government standards. These regulations are intended to serve the well-being of the public. Although this has a direct impact on consumers, government intervention has proven effective in mitigating the abuse of power by companies with a lot of influence on commerce.

Podcast by Malcolm Wettering

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

My name is Malcolm Wettering and I am going to discuss anti-trust laws, monopolies, their connection to one another, and the role of the government in maintaining a balance in the market. A monopoly is an enterprise which possesses exclusive control over the supply of a commodity. This means that a company has the ability to pigeonhole consumers into purchasing a good or service above the competitive equilibrium price because there are no competitors to force them to lower the cost. An anti-trust law is a form of federal and state legislature which promotes fair competition for the benefits of consumers by regulating conduct. This was first developed in the late 1800’s to combat monopolies such as the steel, oil, and banking industries who became prosperous through policies such as lowered working conditions for employees. The role of the government in establishing fair trade began with the Sherman Act in 1890 which was meant to preserve free trade and unfettered competition. This was followed by the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act in 1914. These became the core of anti-trust laws which are still in effect today. The penalties from violating the terms of the Sherman Act can be tough on both corporations and individuals, with monetary fines of 10 million and 350,000, respectively. As well as up to 3 years in prison if convicted but these penalties vary for each case. Any violations of the Sherman Act also violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Clayton Act is specifically designed to prohibit mergers that could lower competition and interlocking directorates. This occurs when members of a corporate board of directors serve on multiple boards of corporations. It is practical because this allows people in positions of power to make decisions for competing companies, which would typically be used to increase profits in some form. There is interdependence between monopolies and anti-trust laws because one cannot exist without the other. Laws were put into place that would establish a balance between the producer and consumer and promote a healthy relationship. Some monopolies get their power through vertical integration, which is when they control the entire chain of supply, from the production aspect to the retail as well. This is detrimental to the businesses of other competitors who do not have control of the supply chain and lose a portion of their profits by having to go through the supply chain. Some other characteristics of monopolies are price fixing, a decline in product quality, and loss of innovation. Innovation is imperative to progression and advances over time, and this is lost when there is no competition to push producers to come up with new ideas to grab the attention of consumers. A decline in product quality most likely occurs because if consumers have no alternative to purchase, they are going to unwillingly settle for what is provided. Regulations impact the market by increasing consumer prices since funds need to be designated to meeting certain standards in various aspects of the company providing the good. This could impact consumers who are poor because energy and food is what their limited budgets prioritize, and this is also one of the most heavily regulated aspects of the market. Consumers are also influenced by regulations through the quality of the goods they are going to purchase, the information they receive about a product, and confidence in the product supply. Some corporations today that resemble monopolies and concentrated industries include Waste Management, Google, and Monsanto. There are legal discrepancies which still allow these companies to continue producing products at a higher price due to a lack of alternatives. For example, utility monopolies are allowed to exist because their prices are regulated by a government body. Competition in these areas would lead to confusion and highly undesirable social outcomes. Such as license issuance for various groups where quality control is of upmost importance. Monsanto is a prime example of a company pushing a lack of alternatives because they have taken over the seed industry. Their products use all GMO seed choices which is leading to a loss of renewable agriculture across the country. Google is a concentrated industry which remains a top used search engine, with about 90% of online searches resulting from their website. They dominate over their competitors and make it difficult for a company to start up in their market. When left unchecked, it is natural for corporations to continuously attempt to maximize their profit. However, it is often at the expense of consumers. A deadweight loss is also created by monopolistic competition, which is the allocative inefficiency of utility that is lost. A possible loophole that companies would try to exploit include purchasing a foreign company which holds less than 70 million in United States assets but may be worth far more. This occurred when Google purchased Waze, a competitor for mapping software, for over 1 billion dollars. Another example would be carried interest, which allows corporations to pay lower taxes on their income. Regulation of companies is a necessary requirement to ensure a mutualistic relationship between producers and consumers. Government intervention has proven over the past century to be beneficial compared to a laissez-faire approach, which would leave the public paying for overpriced goods and services. Anti-trust laws have been in place for just over 100 years, and the same principles are in place today. This is because government control of the market is an ideal way for a third party aside from producers and consumers to be regulated with oversight.

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Show Notes

The following describes the purchase of Waze by Google https://www.gpsworld.com/googles-1-1-billion-purchase-of-waze-under-ftc-scrutiny/ The following describes the seed control strategies of Monsanto https://www.planetnatural.com/seed-control/ The following shows that google is responsible for 90% of online searches https://internethealthreport.org/2018/90-of-the-world-uses-google-search/ The following is where I received information regarding anti-trust laws https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you This is where I got the information for fines and jailtime involving violations of the Sherman Act https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-violating-antitrust-laws.html

Economic Effects of Immigration

A discussion of some of the economic effects of immigration.

Podcast by Shanette Lee

Transcript

[MUSIC]

Kate: Hey everyone. Welcome to Oz-onomics, a podcast created for and by students in introductory economics classes at SUNY Oswego.

GABRIELLA: In this series, we'll have discussions about various economic principles and how they apply to our day to day lives.

KATE: Are you ready?

GABRIELLA: Let's go.

[MUSIC]

Hi listeners, This is Shanette Lee once again with another podcast. Today I will be talking about the economic effects of immigration. So just so happens that unauthorized immigrants created the demand for goods and services while an estimated 50 to 75% pay taxes. So because of cheaper labor, meaning they get paid less than what let's say you are or me will get paid. But while doing the same job at times. They contribute to lower prices in industries where they work, like restaurants, construction and agriculture. You actually see this happen very prominently at jobs, but it happens more when the immigrant is involved because there might be a language barrier. So you do see this, it just so happens that maybe you'll catch onto it. If you could communicate better. The relationship has been observed between immigration and the growth. Obviously it depends on many different variables like the skill composition. They are very hard working because in other countries they have no choice but to work super hard. We're a bit more spoiled here in America that most of us know and like to admit .The rate of assimilation, the distribution labor market consequences, the size of the immigration surplus, the potential human capital extremities and the longterm fiscal impact increasing deportation rates and tightening border controls, weakness like low skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment and native low skilled workers legislation instead decreases the employment rate of low skilled natives and increases income per native who would have thought benefits claim. Now you also see a lot of people like to complain about having immigrants in our country, but the benefits claim include like fiscal advantages, increase growth, domestic product per head already supplied a labor . Like I mentioned earlier, they've worked very hard. Improvements to the age structure, fears that large scale immigration might damage the interest of unskilled native workers are discounted. Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state and low budget, but not all tax payers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of the less educated, um, like low-income immigrants, let's say native born residents bear significant net cause due to immigrants use of public services, especially education. So this is where a lot of people agree with certain things, that are going on in the government because they just feel like ,since we live in America, there fore out people come first . I personally think everybody should be treated the same ...fairly. Some people have this vendetta against immigrants and they like to say l you know, we have to take care of our people first, which I could kinda sorta understand. But if we all are getting help and there is space to help immigrant, then I think we should do that. But people have a problem that the people of our country are getting denied certain things. But then again, they argue immigrants are coming from another country without earning it and you know, benefiting from the benefits we have. It also comes to the fact that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching skills with jobs and higher overall economic productivity, you know, they come skilled, they come ready to work hard. They're not lazy like us. Sometimes they're plier than us, which is pleasant as well. Like Oh for customer service reasons. Immigration also has a net positive effect on, as I mentioned earlier, federal, state and local budgets. It's a good thing. And then it's just things that people don't like to face. Like the fact that let's say I'm working in a factory and then theres an immigrant working at the factory, they'll pay me my high rate , you know and they'll pay that person less because they feel as though that's what the person deserves or the person cant speak up for themselves. So it's kinda hard to pick a side, but they definitely have a great impact on our economy. In the terms of getting stuff done, like when they worked in the factory, when we have a lot of immigrants that happened to be mechanic, very hands on jobs is where we see a lot of immigrants. They make a great deal of a difference. In 2019, the labor force participation rate of foreign born adults was 65.7% higher than the 62.3% rate for the native born. And according to the United States Bureau of labor statistics, 27.2 million foreign born adults, 63.4% of the foreign born adults were employed that year compared to the 59.8% of the native born adults. it's clear to see immigrants hold jobs that are important to our economy. It's our communities, immigrant workers without a college degree. So like, it's helping them get what they have to do done is helping us progress with our economy. And then, you know, we're building things. personally live in New York. We need big buildings. We need, we need them. It's, they're, they're more of a positive impact than there are negative. so I hope I was able to bring clarity or teach you something that you didn't know about the situation. Thank you so much and have a great evening.

[MUSIC]

MICHAEL: There you have a folks on another edition of Oz-onomics, where economics becomes easier for Oswego students to understand where you get your money that you pay for your tuition worth. If you feel like being ahead of the curve, grab a seat, grab your phone, shift your fingers left and right. And download Oz-onomics on the podcast app. See you later.

The introduction to this podcast was provided by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff. Michael Kolawale provided the outro. Music by Lobo Loco.

Show Notes

• https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations