This episode was created by Erin Geraghty.

[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 healthy Foods expensive? Or is that a giant excuse for not eating right? Are Americans just conveniently bypassing the produce department for frozen food aisles that are full preservatives? Did you Know It costs around $500 to join a gym in a year? Let's talk about that. As a college student, it was almost expected of me to gain 15 to 20 pounds in my freshman year. However, I did not, because I found healthy alternatives that SUNY Oswego provided for me. For the average college student, let alone American, this is not always the case. Not every person in the United States knows where their food will be coming from for every dinner, assuming they even eat every night. Some Americans have to decide if going hungry for a day or two is worth keeping their heat on or paying rent on time. We've all heard the classic trope of the poor college student who needs to eat ramen for every meal because they can't afford spinach. But why is that? How come in one of the most powerful countries in the world people are suffering because they cannot afford food. Some neighborhoods only have their local McDonald's or Burger King to provide sustenance. Have you ever heard of a food desert? Okay, so a food desert is an urban area in which difficult to buy affordable or good quality fresh produce or food. Our supply and demand graph is not made up of beef farmers and millionaires. It's made up of cheap food and single mothers who have four children. Sometimes that 4 for 20 deal, it's just too good to pass up. And in this case, mom goes to bed hungry. We'd like to think that humans are rational and they think rationally and the rational thought would be eat because dying of starvation will effectively ruin any chances of paying attention a phone bill on time. Again, we'd like to think that. Behavioral economics knows that humans are not simple and will not abide by a simple supply and demand graph. People are inherently irrational and when it comes to economics, they think with their hearts and sometimes that goes against economic thinking. Say there's this girl and her name is Jane. She has $10 and she can buy one dozen donuts from Dunkin' Donuts or she can make the healthier decision to buy about two or two and a half bunches of asparagus. Jane's opportunity cost of spending all her money on asparagus will be that she's not full as soon. So, this will result in her eating more and more of her bunches of unseasoned asparagus. Her opportunity cost of spending all of her money on donuts is losing out on vital vitamins and nutrients that will keep her healthy. The cost effective choice is obviously not the healthy one. In addition, Jane buying a dozen donuts honestly tastes better. Who wakes up every day and thinks "Yes, I want to eat four stems of asparagus that will keep me happy and healthy all day." No one. Jane could easily walk into her local Dunkin' Donuts in order two jellies, a Boston cream, chocolate glazed cake and so on and so on and eat these for days and days in a row without ever getting bored. It's time for a change in America. In order to get pretty fresh and appetizing produce the produce must be hand harvested, and this adds to the final price of the product. This is why the term food desert is growing every day and becoming part of the American reality. Have you ever seen this documentary Supersize Me? It's about a guy named Morgan Spurlock. He ate only McDonald's three times a day breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days to see the effects on American citizens. He was able to spend less than $15 a day and still double the recommended calorie count every day. Imagine that... spending 15 to 20 bucks a day and getting completely full. He gained 24 pounds increased his body mass by 13% and increased his cholesterol to 230 milligrams. It took him over nine months to lose the weight on a strict vegan diet and rigorous workout routine. Economically, this makes complete sense. It's completely rational. But health wise, it's obviously not. In my opinion, I think the United States needs to implement a sugar tax much like our neighbors across the pond. In the UK and many other areas of Europe, you can't just buy a plain Pepsi without a substantial tax tacked  on and then making the product much more expensive. This would force non-essential foods to be less available to the average person. In order to stay in business, supermarkets should then lower their healthier foods and offer rebates to their produce providers to give them more healthy foods and larger quantities. I mean, I'm vegetarian, and I have a really, really hard time trying to buy food for myself because I don't eat red meat or I don't eat chicken. And for some reason broccoli is $20 and I could just go get a burger that's pumped full of hormones and a cow that's been unjustly killed just to feed a person that they've never met. Why am I being punished for wanting to live a healthier... a humane lifestyle? Why does Oswego have three Dunkin Donuts I will never understand. But children who get a free lunch at school are honestly getting more vitamins than their parents on an average work day.

[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.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/plotsummary http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts

This podcast was created by Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff.

[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: Hey Gabby!

G: Hey Kate!

K: What do you want to apply economic principles to today?

G: How about food?

K: Need it to live!

G: Any particular kind of food?

K: Hmmm, how ‘bout fruit?

G: Let’s narrow it down a little more… K: Strawberries?

G: Yeah! Strawberries are my jam! *punchline cymbal crash*

K: What do we know about strawberries, aside from the fact that they’re delicious?

G: Well, here in Upstate New York, the strawberry growing season is very short…just a few weeks from mid-June to early July.

K: Thanks to modern refrigeration and transportation technology, we can import them from other areas to enjoy year-round, if we’re so inclined.

G: Well, are we so inclined?

K: Well, here’s a good time to talk about supply and demand. The laws of demand discuss the inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded, while all other variables remain constant. If this was the case, we’d be consuming the same amount of strawberries in December as we do in June…but we don’t do that, because all other variables aren’t constant. There are other factors that affect demand, such as tastes and preferences. In the case of Upstate NY consumers such as ourselves, strawberries are traditionally a summer item, so that’s when we want them most, even though we can get them year-round.

G: That’s not to say that we don’t take advantage of our ability to import…New Yorkers want more strawberries during the summer months than we can produce.

K: Let’s forget about our local harvest for a minute and shift our focus out west to California. They have a 12-month growing season, and 91% of the country’s strawberries are produced there.

G: As the weather warms up in New York, people get strawberries on the mind, and the demand curve shifts to the right, increasing the quantity of strawberries demanded at any price. This is when the berry section at the supermarket starts to take center stage. K: So things are going great…we want berries, they have berries, we buy them…everyone’s happy. So what happens when the New York harvest is ready?

G: Have you ever tasted a locally grown, fresh strawberry? K: Ah, there’s nothing like it! They are sweeter than candy, and they’re dirt cheap! The local variety are tastier and less expensive. So during the three-ish weeks that these are available, demand for the imports drops.

G: Hold on, if people want the local strawberries instead of the California strawberries, does that mean that the imports are an inferior good?

K: Not so fast! You and I might think local strawberries are superior for many reasons, but in economic terms, an inferior good is described as a product or service for which demand decreases when incomes rise, and that’s not the case here. Local strawberries are cheaper, remember?

G: That’s right! Let’s talk about why. We’ll start by considering costs of production, such as resources to grow, labor, packaging, and distribution. That last one’s a biggie. Think about how much more it costs to get a strawberry to your house from a farm in California versus a local farm.

K: Furthermore, local farms can save on labor and distribution costs by selling at farmstands and offering a U-Pick option, in addition to selling berries at the supermarket.

G: So how does the import market respond to this?

K: Think about how it would look on a graph. The availability of the local berries shifts the demand curve for imported berries to the left, lowering the equilibrium price. This basically means that while the New York berries are available, the stores can’t get away with charging as much for the California berries, so California supplies fewer of them.

G: After the short but sweet New York harvest season, the demand curve for imports shifts back to the right, prices rise again, and so does the quantity supplied. What other factors can affect price? K: What about scarcity?

G: Imagine if New York had an unusually dry summer, which affected our strawberry harvest. This would create a situation in which the quantity supplied is less than the quantity demanded. This creates a shortage, which drives the price up. K:

A weather event would likely affect all local produce, but if the shortage were somehow limited to just strawberries, you might start to see a greater demand for substitute products such as blueberries, blackberries or raspberries.

G: So there you have it! Next time you’re in the produce aisle, you might think of those delicious little berries in a whole new light! K: And we’ll leave you on that note. I’m Kate Soanes! G: I’m Gabby Schaff. K: Take care!

G: 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.

Podcast creator: Michael Kolawale.

[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 the first ever 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. Now I call that a substitute good. *Laughs in the background* So, for the first episode which is called Ozzortunity Cost is going to be all revolved around the concept of Opportunity Cost and how we use it everyday in our lives. It’s one of the most basics concepts of economics yet some may have a trouble understanding it. First, In order to examine how it is used in our everyday life, you must first examine what it is. Now get out your pen, your paper, your pencil, or take out your phone and use the notes app. We first begin with the definition. Definition: Now, to keep it short and sweet, Opportunity Cost is what you give up to get, what you give up to buy for other goods or services. Now if an economist were to say what is Opportunity Cost? They would tell you it is the value of the next best alternative. So, pretty much opportunity cost is used to indicate what must be given up to obtain something that is desired. Everything has an opportunity cost. It does not matter what it is. Opportunity Cost is simply all around us. You can’t escape it at all. Now that we know the definition, now we understand basically the fundamentals go Opportunity Cost. Now, let’s give you some guys some examples to further understand it. Examples: Let say it’s Wednesday in Oswego and on a late Wednesday night it is considered Wing night in Oswego, but you see you missed it. You missed late night because of a meeting. Mind you, you have not eaten all day at all. Being as though you don’t want to spend on your own money on food, you're faced on deciding what to do, what to eat with your dining dollars. Sub Shop being closed leaves you with two choices to get food on GET FOOD. The two choices are: Domino’s or Wonzones. Now if you choose to get Domino’s, you give up the opportunity to get Wonzones. Now if you choose to get Wonzones, you give up the opportunity to get Domino’s. Wether you choose Domino’s or Wonzones regardless if you picked one of them, your giving up the opportunity to not get the other and that is Opportunity Cost in it’s basic form. However, what if I told you everything you did throughout that Wednesday in Oswego you basically did it with Opportunity Cost in mind and you might not have thought about it but that’s whatcha did throughout the day, making Opportunity Costs. Let me explain. So, On Wednesday I have an 8AM class In Lanigan I know that The bus leaves in the Middle of Waterbury and Riggs at around 7:45AM. So, I developed a routine of mine to wake up at 6:45am every morning. I spend around 20 minutes showering brushing my teeth which makes me done at approximately 7:05am. I spend another 20 minutes eating to makes me done at 7:25am. I spend another 15 minutes getting ready packing up stuff for class and just stuff I need to do throughout the day which takes 15 minutes to do and I finish it around 7:40am. That leaves me with about 5 minutes to catch the bus at 7:45am. It takes 2 minutes for the bus to get to Lanigan Hall for class and it takes 1 minute for me to get to class when I arrive in the building. So, I arrive in the actual classroom at 7:48am which is 12 minutes early before the 8am start time of class. Now the opportunity cost sometimes I always consider of: Do I have to necessarily go to class? No not really. See if I decide to not go to class. I gain more sleep. That’s what I gain from that. However, I give up learning the material covered in that class for that day. Now, being as though I want an A in the class and I believe hardwork is the way that hardwork Is just the better way and if I’m paying for class I might as well get what I put in. I believe that it worth me giving up more sleep and going to class and getting the A I rightfully deserve. To me that is the best opportunity cost I can make as opposed to skipping class and gaining more sleep which is also an Opportunity Cost. Now, Opportunity Cost is also one of those things you can do mathematically. Opportunity Cost does not necessarily mean it’s always a numerical thing but it can be. It also can be calculated. Let’s say I want to get more sleep and I decide to wake up at 7:30am. So, I don’t necessarily miss class… I can make it to class. However it would take me a little bit longer to get ready and do the stuff I know I should be doing if I wake up at 6:45am. So I decide the next best alternative is to rush to get to class. Since being as though I woke up at 7:30am. I rush to shower eat a pop tart simply brush my teeth and get dressed and I finish all this by 7:52pm. The bus is already gone so I have to walk it. I walk to class which is about a six minute walk from Waterbury & Lanigan which also accounts for arriving to the building and finding the class room). I arrive to class at & 7:58am which is still early But I normally arrive there at 7:48am. So My Question is? How much time did I give up on making sure I am properly prepared and being early if I just woke up when I am supposed too as opposed to giving my body more sleep. So we first write on our papers: 7:30am (which was the time I got up late Then we write - 6:45am (which was the time I normally get up) So if you minus 7:30am - 6:45am you should get 45 minutes. So I gave up 45 minutes of prep time to sleeping. That being said but because I woke up late at at 7:30am and I arrived to class late at 7:58am. If I woke up on time at 6:45am and did my normal routine I would have arrived at class at 7:48am. So when it comes to figuring out how much time I gave up to arrive earlier we do 7:58am - 7:48am and it gives us 10 minutes. So I gave up an additional 10 minutes to arrive early because I woke up late at 7:30am. Outro: Now to conclude this for all my proud lakers out there remember Opportunity Cost is a choice in your everyday life you are responsible for making wether it is good or bad. It is the next best alternative and it is what we give up to get. I hope with the explanation and the examples of Opportunity Cost blending in with the Life of an Oswego Student you furthered understood the concept. This is Oz-onomics and I’m your host Michael Kolawole and I look forward to helping your understanding of economics easier 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.

[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 Casey Stewart and todays podcast will be about how managers come to making decisions in the workplace. We will discuss how they use what’s called marginal analysis. I chose this topic because I am a business administration major and I enjoy being part of the decision making processes for the companies I have and am currently working for. Let me explain marginal analysis…. Marginal analysis is a look at the additional benefits of a decision compared to the additional costs of that same decision. Basically what am I gaining? And what am I losing? Lots of companies use marginal analysis to make big decisions within their companies. One of them being the hiring process. They look at potential employees and say to themselves what good will this employee bring to the table? or What sets them apart from the next person walking through that door? Then they ask themselves, well how much is this person going to want to get paid for their contributions to the company? If the gain of the employee’s labor is more than the cost of their compensation, this is a good rational decision. The word marginal refers to the focus on the benefit of the next person walking through the door or the profit earned by adding another employee. Marginal means when one unit is added then what change does it bring to the result or to the company. When companies use marginal analysis they compare the costs and potential benefits of their business activities or financial decisions. Take my company Spectrum for example. This month were going through our “annual” (and I air quote annual) rate adjustments. Yes they raised the price of internet yet again. This is a great example of marginal analysis. They weighed the benefit of getting more money to the cost of potentially losing customers. They want to focus on making their infrastructure better. In order to accomplish this, they need more funds. They see the cost of losing customers for now being less than the benefit of making their internet faster and more reliable. Were talking 10G in the future people! Businesses need to also understand the concept of marginal costs. Marginal costs are the increase in total cost as a result of producing one extra unit. In reference to the example of the price of internet increasing, the company’s marginal cost is the cost of one customer leaving us to go with another provider for internet. The company raised the cost of internet $5 a month, knowing they could lose a customer that is currently paying $70.99 a month for internet. Now in the short run they know that the price increase of the internet will cause some customers to leave. They know that some will stay even though they increased the cost due to the internet being a much needed amenity. In the long run they believe that those customers will return to company knowing that they are very competitively priced and they offer the best service in regards to speed and reliability. In the example of hiring employees the marginal cost of hiring the more experienced employee who is asking for more money, is the amount of money the company will lose when they hire that employee versus someone asking for a less amount but with less experience. Marginal analysis is the process of breaking down decisions into yes or no smaller choices. That’s what economics is right? All about the choice we make.

[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.

Podcast by: Mallory Jennings

[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 Casey Stewart and todays podcast will be about how managers come to making decisions in the workplace. We will discuss how they use what’s called marginal analysis. I chose this topic because I am a business administration major and I enjoy being part of the decision making processes for the companies I have and am currently working for. Let me explain marginal analysis…. Marginal analysis is a look at the additional benefits of a decision compared to the additional costs of that same decision. Basically what am I gaining? And what am I losing? Lots of companies use marginal analysis to make big decisions within their companies. One of them being the hiring process. They look at potential employees and say to themselves what good will this employee bring to the table? or What sets them apart from the next person walking through that door? Then they ask themselves, well how much is this person going to want to get paid for their contributions to the company? If the gain of the employee’s labor is more than the cost of their compensation, this is a good rational decision. The word marginal refers to the focus on the benefit of the next person walking through the door or the profit earned by adding another employee. Marginal means when one unit is added then what change does it bring to the result or to the company. When companies use marginal analysis they compare the costs and potential benefits of their business activities or financial decisions. Take my company Spectrum for example. This month were going through our “annual” (and I air quote annual) rate adjustments. Yes they raised the price of internet yet again. This is a great example of marginal analysis. They weighed the benefit of getting more money to the cost of potentially losing customers. They want to focus on making their infrastructure better. In order to accomplish this, they need more funds. They see the cost of losing customers for now being less than the benefit of making their internet faster and more reliable. Were talking 10G in the future people! Businesses need to also understand the concept of marginal costs. Marginal costs are the increase in total cost as a result of producing one extra unit. In reference to the example of the price of internet increasing, the company’s marginal cost is the cost of one customer leaving us to go with another provider for internet. The company raised the cost of internet $5 a month, knowing they could lose a customer that is currently paying $70.99 a month for internet. Now in the short run they know that the price increase of the internet will cause some customers to leave. They know that some will stay even though they increased the cost due to the internet being a much needed amenity. In the long run they believe that those customers will return to company knowing that they are very competitively priced and they offer the best service in regards to speed and reliability. In the example of hiring employees the marginal cost of hiring the more experienced employee who is asking for more money, is the amount of money the company will lose when they hire that employee versus someone asking for a less amount but with less experience. Marginal analysis is the process of breaking down decisions into yes or no smaller choices. That’s what economics is right? All about the choice we make in the case of scarcity because we don’t have enough resources that we desire. I’m going to end on this note. In regards to the hiring processes, managers make their decisions using marginal analysis. They look at who has the degree, who has the most experience, who has the most extra curricular activities and volunteer efforts that developed them as a productive member of society? I encourage you all to get this degree, to make yourself better in any way you can. Attend workshops and do internships. All of this will set you apart from the next potential employee. Managers weigh the options of hiring using marginal analysis where they ask themselves is the benefit of gaining this particular employee worth the cost of compensation they are asking for? Think about it! Thanks for listening and I hope I resonated with all of you. I hope you have a great day!

[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.

Podcast by Nicky Radford.

[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 Nicky Radford, and in this episode, we’ll be discussing smartphones, their price elasticity (or lack thereof), and how their market is more than meets the eye. In the modern world, smartphones seem like a necessity. We live in a society that needs to have everything right at our fingertips. Information needs to come faster than it came yesterday. As such, smartphones have become more and more in demand, and the supply is matching that. At least, that’s what the assumption would be. It’s not as clear cut when you look at it from another perspective. The smartphone market, like all markets, is rather complex, and dissecting it can lead to a greater understanding of our economic landscape. Let’s discuss the market for smartphones. According to an article from the Pew Research Center, 81% of adults in the United States own a smartphone of some kind as of February 2019. One may assume that means that demand is increasing, but in actuality, the demand for purchasing a new smartphone has steadily decreased, as fewer and fewer Americans are without a smartphone. Those that do rarely purchase the upgraded version when it immediately comes out; they may wait a few generations, or keep the smartphone they bought at the outset and keep it until it is no longer usable. This is to say that while smartphones are becoming a greater constant in our world, the market for smartphones is reaching a plateau, since the number of those without one or needing to upgrade one is shrinking. When in the market for a new smartphone, there’s plenty to consider: brand recognition and reputation, hardware specifications, brand-exclusive features, and more. But where the consideration really begins is the price. The unfortunate fact is that many of the latest and up-to-date smartphones cost significantly more than what they used to, which can make it challenging for a consumer to afford the product, which can affect their desire and demand for it. Let’s take a look at the two largest smartphone companies on the planet: Apple and Samsung. From an American perspective, it may appear that Apple is the dominating smartphone brand. With every annual iPhone release, it seems that Apple consumers are craving a new model. No matter the price, people are in need for a high-end smartphone. From this lens, it seems the demand is high, and the price elasticity of demand is fairly inelastic. A significant price difference between the newest iPhone and the previous one does not seem to sway Apple’s target demographics. However, the same cannot be said for other regions across the globe. According to an article from Computerworld, “Except for North America and in Asia or Pacific nations, Apple saw iPhone demand weaken in most areas, including in greater China, where its market share dropped from 14.6% [Note: I wrongly said 16.6% in the audio] in [the Fourth Quarter in 2017] to 8.8% this past quarter. For 2018 as a whole, iPhone sales were down 2.7%, [which was] just over 209 million units.” In America specifically, the market for iPhones seems to be coasting well. For much else of the world, people are looking toward alternative options. The price elasticity in regions such as Europe and Africa is likely more elastic than that of North America. In those regions, high-end smartphones may not be seen as necessities in the way North America sees them, and thus consumers in those regions are willing to seek substitute goods. Another way to look at it is that high-end smartphones are seen as a normal good in North America, but a luxury good in other regions. A higher income may result in a greater demand for high-end smartphones, but a consumer with a lower income may be more comfortable with what they can afford. The demand for smartphones is present in all regions, but a significant price may convince consumers to seek out an inferior good due to their budget, such as a less expensive smartphone or a non-smart cellular device. Now, let’s look at Samsung, the other top dog of smartphone sales. Globally, Samsung is the actual leading brand, as they produce smartphones beyond one high-end product line; they offer mid-priced smartphones as well. Samsung recognizes that the price elasticity of smartphone demand can be much more elastic in different regions, and so to remain competitive they offer products in the same market at different prices. This breadth in the market may be enticing to some consumers, leading them to choose Samsung. So what does this mean for smartphones and the companies that make them? Well, Apple’s plan seems to be to keep making high-end iPhones, with upgraded features and higher prices with every new release. In America, that seems to be no issue at all, but they run into trouble in other regions over time. As for Samsung, their strategy is likely going to keep them as the global giant that they are, so long as no competing companies gain more share in the market. How much these two companies are prioritizing the elasticity of smartphones will continue to be a factor in the products they produce, and may impact their demand in the future. Thanks for listening.

[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.

Podcast by: Elizabeth Evans

[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 the title of my podcast is where will the children go? This podcast will discuss the shortage of day here in New York State and throughout the rest of the country. And then we'll also discuss some of the reasons for the daycare shortage and different ways that the daycare shortage could be remedied and we can provide enough supply of daycare for all of the children in need. Right now, in New York, we are in the midst of a daycare shortage. This service about 25 years ago, and supply of daycare has continued to be an issue ever since. According to child care solutions, which is a nonprofit organization that provides information and resources to parents, daycare providers, employers and the community. New York is currently facing a daycare desert. A daycare desert is when three or more children are competing for one open spot in a daycare entity here desert the demand is too high while the supply is too low, which creates issues mortgage demand in New York continues to grow, especially for children aged infants and toddlers. There are many reasons for the lack of supply and in turn the shortage of daycare. One reason for a lack of supply is the lack of facilities. There are not enough physical centers to cater to the number of children in need. facilities are also closing because they don't have the money to maintain them to standards and the state will not re license them to care for children. There is also a shortage of teachers in New York state and across the country, especially qualified teachers. daycare is run on numbers, meaning that they have a certain number of teachers that they are required to have to meet the number of children and every single classroom. The numbers for each classroom changes depending on the age of the children, meaning that infants are lower numbers for children per teachers, while ages such as preschool or school age have higher numbers per teacher. Having an adequate number of teachers is a necessity to meet the demand of all of the children that need to be enrolled in daycares. One issue with teachers is they are not taking the jobs or they are leaving the jobs quickly at daycares because of the very low pay and the difficult working conditions. Without a know teachers daycares cannot fill all of their available spots. Another cause of the shortage is a lack of maternity leave for women. This creates a much higher demand for infant and toddler care. And there are not enough infant and toddler spots for the families in need. If maternity leave could be extended for women, they wouldn't need keras early and they could enroll their children at an older age, possibly even at a preschool age where there is more space and more children can be in each classroom so there's more available spots. Lastly, since the services in such high demand and the supply is so limited, the cost has been driven up so high that it's been unaffordable for a large part of the population. Right now the average cost of Indian keras $15,000 a year, which a lot of families cannot afford. The amount of daycare should be capped at about seven to 9% of income, making it more affordable for families. In this situation, there could also be government subsidies that they could be given to daycares to help them open new facilities, or hire more teachers. So that way there could be more supply while the demand stays same. This will also allow them to maintain their facilities, and then that way they could enroll more children. It will help the lack of supply and hopefully and the shortage if not at least lessen the shortage. The low amount of supply that it has been available lately has driven the price higher and higher for daycares. And since they are not regulated. Most daycares can charge whatever they want to If you were to use demand side policies rather than supply side, it would make more sense to focus on the demand rather than the supply and lowering the prices would help that. Along with the government subsidies to help the daycares expand and allow for more available spots. Increasingly, supply of daycare can also allow more parents to go back to work. By not putting procedures in place to increase the supply. The country is suffering a very large opportunity cost, while the subsidies that are bit that would be given to daycares make hospital government money. Right now, it is costing the country about $6.8 billion a year and that economy due to the lack of child care and the spillover effect of that if the government were to put money into daycares and give them subsidies such as opening new facilities or hiring more teachers, so that they could have more available spots. It would allow more people to go back to work. And it would definitely lessen that impact on the economy. Rather than putting their money into things such as food stamps or welfare, any other welfare programs, which they are already spending a lot of money on. If they were to give the money to daycares it would allow more people to go back to work and it would be a huge economic driver. This way, the supply of daycare would be higher, the demand would be lower and it would hopefully end the day here shortage across the country.

[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.

[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 Tyler Rogan and today I will be discussing a few real life economic topics regarding hunting. The topics I will be discussing are the overall hunting market, opportunity cost, demand and supply, price elasticity, sunk costs, scarcity, and cost of production. To open this podcast up I would like to shed light on hunting as a whole, us hunters are bigger conservationists than people think. For example, throughout the year we attend multiple sporting outings, dinners, and fundraising events. With all proceeds going directly into habitat conservation and game and wildlife management. Not to mention in order to hunt any type of waterfowl game you must purchase a $25 dollar duck stamp with proceeds going directly back into conservation. With that said the sport of hunting is about comradery, friendship and great eating, as well as taking from the land while also giving back. Hunting is a very seasonal sport, in fact it’s pretty much a fall sport with a big break in the winter, eventually opening up to a smaller season with spring turkey and squirrel.That being said let’s start by discussing the funny but true topic in opportunity cost associated with the sport of hunting. Let’s be real as an avid hunter even I recognize that our opportunity cost is among some of the biggest. The hours or even days we spend in the woods or swamps could be time used working overtime or studying. Our decision to go hunting results in a significant loss in money due to our unique opportunity cost. Many people I know often skip class or find excuses for work that morning to hunt……. It’s addicting. The overall market of hunting varies due to the changing seasons for example as soon as fall hits all brands and retail stores go full price frendzy mode. Deer season, turkey season, and waterfowl season are the big ones that cause hunters flock to stores for new ammunition and this years new gear. Then once winter hits stores slowly start to mark down gear and ammunition from 5-10% in the winter to 50% in the summer. Yes turkey loads and turke gear goes up in the spring but besides that all other hunting gear typically stays 5-10% off due the lowered demand. Which brings me to my next point in supply and demand. Obviously the supply triples two weeks before fall being at the peak of demand for the whole year. The demand increases due to the upcoming anticipation of upcoming deer and waterfowl season. Often times the surplus of gear and ammunition in hopes for a huge push in the fall always leads to a surplus in the spring in summer causing every hunters dream and huge price reduction to low demand and with a surplus supply. Leading to the topic of price elasticity with the changing seasons of hunting causing price elasticity to be all over the place just like I mentioned for the supply and demand. Price will be high in season Fall and spring, while falling low in price during the summer and peak of winter when no season for hunting is open. As far as cost of production hunting gear tends to typically be a little higher since a lot of brands stand behind “American Made” items. For example all of Remmington guns and ammunition is made in America. Where if they outsourced some of their production to overseas the cost of production and retail prices might be lower. Although I myself would rather the items be made in America to help our economy. Another funny topic for hunters is the sunk costs associated with our very expensive sport. Think about all the shots you miss especially as a waterfowl hunter the amount of shot shells that you miss is considered a very considerably expensive sunk costs. With box of shells retailing around 30 dollars. Now to talk about a very controversial topic for hunters and the government agencies in charge of changing seasonal bag limits for waterfowl and upland game. This year the waterfowl limit for geese went from 5 birds to 2 a day. While the duck limit changed from 4 birds to 2 this year. This is a direct result of scarcity which has been going on for years now, which is the reason I say controversial. Limits do need to be reduced but it is less fun and irritating to avid hunters. When I was 12 years old bag limits used to be 7-12 birds a person. This podcast “Hunting meets Economics” was a real life example and in my opinion a great way to better understand very important topics for Economics. Thank you I hope you enjoyed.

[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.

Podcast by Matthew Bailey.

[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, everyone! I am Matt Bailey, and welcome back to our podcast. Today we will be looking at how college students decide to spend their money, and how this affects their spending habits and other aspects of their life. The first thing we will be looking at is a concept known as opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is when you have a choice between two options, say, going to a movie theater or eating at a nice restaurant. If you decide to go to the restaurant, your opportunity cost is the movie you would have seen, and vise-versa. When you are on a limited budget, opportunity cost can be a very, very difficult thing to deal with sometimes. Say, for example, that you really want to do something nice for your friend on their birthday. You want to spend, say $10 on a gift for them, and you only have forty dollars to spend that month. If you do this, your friend will be very happy, but you will have a lot less money to spend on yourself. So here is where the opportunity cost can be hard to achieve and hard to deal with if you had to live on your own. Another big issue, especially for most college students, is the concept of scarcity. Scarcity is the idea that resources are all finite: There are only a certain amount of resources of any given type available to the economy. Let's say, for example, that you are a college student and you have a lot of time on your hands, and you are looking for a part-time job. Unfortunately, more often than not, you'll only be able to find a job on-campus. But then again, there are twenty thousand people just like you that might want a job as well. But let's say you decide to find a job off-campus. Here, you have an even bigger problem, because the rest of the world, city, state, etc., has many people who need jobs as well. If you take it from them to have spending money at college, the person you took the job from may not be able to feed their family for the night. But of course, this is never guaranteed to happen. There are always other jobs out there, not just the cashier position at Spirit Halloween, or the sandwich artist at Subway, or anything like that. There are countless jobs out there, it just depends on specializations, or work availability, scheduling, and above all supply and demand. Supply is the amount of resources or products or services that are available in the economy, and demand is as the name suggests: How much it is needed or wanted at that moment in time. Let's say for example that there is a job opening up for a new supermarket. There are a lot of job opportunities there, which means a lot of demand for people to apply for work. So let's suppose that they were looking for young adults or teenagers (aka college students) to fill out their more mundane tasks like cashiers or stock boys. If the supermarket decided on this course of action, they would have an opportunity cost of the people not in college, for example, the unemployed men and women in the city they are currently in. But, they are also aware that the supply of college students who need a job is also very high. So, this is where the balance can be maintained. Now, this also ties back into scarcity: Because there are only so many positions available at this supermarket, there are only so many people that can get jobs at that place. Now, do you want to get the job, or do you think your friend needs it more? You have two options: One, you could let your friend get the job, help him pay his bills, put food on the table, get the books he needs for class, things like that. However, if you do this, you won't have any money for yourself to spend on free time, or for your own books or doing personal maintenance for things. Weighing your options and making these decisions is possibly the most difficult choice that college students have to make. There are many more like them, but this is all we had time for right now, so thank you for listening, and I will see you again next time. Buh-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.

Podcast by: Malcolm Wettering

[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]

There is constant competition among producers of substitute goods. For obvious reasons there are whole branches within companies dedicated to marketing strategy and figuring out how to make products the most desirable. Tactics of this include the use of social media, billboards, television commercials, and other advertisements that are came into contact with daily by the public. This is all built around the concept of opportunity cost, which is the benefit being given up when choosing one alternative over another. An example of this occurs with two very successful producers, Bose and Amazon who compete in earbud audio technology. With no sign of a stop in advancements any time soon, there is a constant push for being the best on the market which involves the use of technology that may be unoriginal to the producer. This was the case for Bose when Amazon began using their technology in their newest model. A Bose spokesperson made an announcement that this happened as another way to swing public opinion, which is a marketing strategy in itself. Since the term “benefit” to one person could be a con to another, this makes selling newer models even more difficult because sometimes producers do not fulfill the high hopes of the consumers. This is an ongoing cycle where there are constant improvements made as time progresses. This ensures higher output than what is being put into the economic market to reach these improvements. Competition is good for the market because without it producers would be able to raise their prices which would cause issues for people from every social status. The opportunity cost is comprised of individual preference and how the product can be distinguished from another while still maintaining its true purpose in order to sway a consumer their direction as opposed to competitors. Subtle differences become magnified when a product is compared to its alternatives. I think future advancements will rely less on complex technology and more towards convenience, because the more time that is saved using this good the more desirable it is. Especially considering the type of livelihood that exists among the people of the modern era, where consumers are willing to pay more for products that are easy to use, easy to understand, and allow for the least amount of work the individual has to actually do. Opportunity cost also ensures the appropriate allocation of resources are being used in a world full of scarcity. In order to run efficiently, companies must optimize their resources to make profit. This system works in favor of the consumer and producer because the better that resources are distributed, the cheaper the cost to make the product which in return reduces the price of the product for the consumer. Economics is considered a social science because of the unpredictable human factor. Models can be developed to support different systems of economic thought. The market strategy tends to be based on information at any given moment of time because of the large number of variables that come into play and how quickly information can encourage or discourage consumers. Each individual has their favorite brands and products and the more companies appeal to their target audience, the more likely they are to spread the word and convince others to switch over. This tends to occur frequently because people within social groups share similar wants and needs. For example, outdoorsman are going to discuss their favorite brand with other outdoorsman. Just as chefs would discuss their favorite products with each other in that niche of the market. Complexity is an understatement considering the amount of disagreement that exists between people with extensive economic knowledge. This is because there is more than one way to reach the same goal by exercising various economic policies. Substitute goods describes the predicament when the purchase of one product means not obtaining another. This is important because it explains why businesses are so eager to sell products they believe to be more convenient and better suited for their target crowd than another business with overlapping similarities. I think opportunity cost ties into the sale aspect of the market because the public is going to purchase something when they are giving up the least amount of benefits. It is human nature to want the most out of each dollar spent so each individual can allocate their own resources efficiently depending on their budget. Budget is important because opportunity cost can be based on knowledge of the target consumers income. A lower price is more beneficial than a substitute good at a higher price because if two goods are nearly identical, but one is cheaper than the other, then the cheaper good will likely draw more business. The opportunity cost between consumer goods and their alternatives drives companies producing substitute goods to make the most out of their resources which are always limited to some degree, in order to best please the public. Comparative advantage is involved since some companies are able to produce a good cheaper than another business selling the same good, which will allow for a lower opportunity cost and more output. Trying to constantly please the public may leave a company wondering what they could possibly do next after exhausting ideas because they are already doing the best of their ability. I think that the best option for businesses is to offer incentives to increase the likelihood of customer loyalty. Customer loyalty is important to success because returning customers help keep things progressing even when sales are not going as well as predicted for newer products. I think that the combination of efforts between consumers and producers has created a symbiotic relationship where most companies and most people interact with each other in a way that is beneficial to both parties.

[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.

Podcast by: Brooke Sherwood

[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.

Podcast: by Shanette Lee

[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.

Podcast by: Erin Geraghty

[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.

Podcast by Michael Kolawole

[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.

Podcast by: Elizabeth Evans

[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.

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

Podcast by: Brianna Jones and Lloyd Ferguson

[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.

• 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/

Podcast by Mallory Jennings

[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.

Podcast by: Kate Soanes and Gabriella Schaff

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]

[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.

Podcast by Malcolm Wettering

[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.

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

Podcast by Shanette Lee

[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.

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

Podcast by Taylor Moore and Caroline Flynn

[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]

Taylor’s Part of Podcast Hi everyone! This podcast features Caroline and Taylor (myself) as we will be discussing certain economic topics and looking at how they can apply to real life examples. I will take the first part and Caroline will talk about the second half of our topics. Today we are going to discuss opportunities costs and sunk costs! These are very important things to talk about and acknowledge in the world of economics. Now let's get into what these terms mean, The opportunity cost is the cost of next best alternative use. It is calculated in terms of the other goods. On the other hand, the sunk cost is the money spent on goods or services which cannot be recovered such as paying for rent. While these ideas sound like they may have some similarities, they are actually totally different concepts. First let’s take a look at opportunity cost and dive in a bit further to see how it works. In an example, A person can produce either 50 units of wheat or 100 units of rice by using its all resources in the given season. What is the opportunity cost of 1 unit of wheat? When we are considering this question, we want to determine what we gave up or lost with the production of another good. So in this case, what did we lose in terms of rice by producing 1 unit of wheat? Are we giving up wheat or rice when we use our resources to produce one unit of wheat? The answer is the alternative, which is rice. Therefore, in this case when we produce 1 unit of wheat, our opportunity cost is 2 units of rice. Now that we have a pretty good understanding of opportunity cost, let's look at an example of a sunk cost. Think about whether this statement is true or false: Advertisements are a sunk cost. Before we answer, remember that sunk costs are money that is spent on goods or services that cannot be recovered. This example is sort of tricky because when we think of it in terms of advertising it seems like it is not a sunk cost because of the potential revenue that ads could generate. However, advertisement expenses are considered sunk costs. It is money that once a company or individual spends, they are unable to recover. Before Caroline takes over, I am going to talk about short run average cost and the way that it appears on a graph. When we consider short run costs, we are talking about things that happen in the short term such as parts of the production process and what will occur over a short term output. I have another true or false statement that I want you to consider: The short run average cost is U shaped. (keep in mind this is talking in terms of how it appears on a graph.) The answer to this question is true. The short run average cost is U shaped on a graph because of the law of variable proportion. This law states that while the quantity of one variable factor is changed, the quantities of the other factors remain fixed. This is how we end up with a U like shape on the graph. Podcast Outline 5 Caroline’s Part of Podcast Thanks, Taylor and welcome, again everyone. As Taylor mentioned, we are discussing opportunity cost versus sunk cost today. Sunk cost is the cost that we have already incurred. This cost cannot be recouped as it is already attempted to expend. Whereas opportunity cost is something that a person should take into account. As it is the value of a fog on activity or an alternative when another activity or opportunity is taken. Opportunity cost should have to be measured while making decisions. Let’s look at a couple more scenarios: If we state that the gap between average cost curve and average variable cost curve increases as production increases, but why? We can argue that it is true because the law of variable proportion applies or we could say it is false because the average fixed cost decreases as the production increases. We could even go so far as to say that both are correct or neither are correct. Any thoughts? Well, in this example, the argument that the gap between average cost curve and average variable cost curve increases as production increases is incorrect because the average fixed cost decreases as the production increases. In this next example we state that the average variable cost is minimum when marginal cost is equal to it. Is this the case? Why? We can either say that yes, it is because the marginal cost curve cuts the average cost at its minimum point or yes, it is because the marginal cost is ratio of change in total variable cost and change in output. In this scenario, BOTH are correct. The average variable cost is minimum when marginal cost is equal to it because the marginal cost curve cuts the average cost at its minimum point and also because the marginal cost is ratio of change in total variable cost and change in output. So, to reiterate what we’ve touched on today, the opportunity cost is the cost of next best alternative use which is calculated in terms of other goods; while sunk cost is the money spent on goods which cannot be recovered, such as rent. Thank you for listening today. We hope you learned a little more about these topics today and their importance to economics. So long and stay safe.

[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 1970s were characterized by periods of stagflation in which unemployment and inflation both rose. The stem of the issue came from political tensions in Arabia which led to a disruption in the supply of oil for the rest of the world. The resulting energy shocks disrupted the economies of many countries around the globe that imported oil from OPEC nations. It has been investigated time and time again the extent to which these energy shocks affected the economy. Specifically, economists want to know how much of the resulting stagflation was due directly to the energy shocks themselves, and how much was due to the government’s monetary policy in response to the shocks. This podcast explores both sides of the debate between the oil shocks and monetary policy.

This podcast focuses on the causes and consequences of the Great Depression with the focus on monetary policy and international monetary policy.

This podcast is about the events that took place leading up to, during, and after the 2008 Financial Crisis. This will include the lead up with the housing crisis, rising interest rates, and warning signs. It will also include during the crisis with bank failures, unemployment growth, GDP decline, and steps to try and mitigate the crisis. Finally, after the crisis we will get into the effects the crisis had on employment, the overall economy, GDP, and the acts/efforts passed afterwards.

We discuss the returns to college majors, the reason why there are fewer women in stem, the economics of returns to education and majors, advice on college major choice,

Education inequity is a recurring issue in many countries across the world. When looking at South Africa, Finland, and the United States, there is a significant difference in the county’s allocation of resources to education which includes government funding, education requirements, and technology resources. The largest discrepancies exist between developing and developed nations where in developing countries there is a focus of resources on primary education and attacking the lower literacy levels in countries such as South Africa. While developed nations such as the US and Finland allocate far more resources to that secondary education. Finding ways to spread resources across the entirety of a nation is key to reducing income inequality through the improvement of education inequity in larger nations such as the US.

The aim of this podcast is to dissect economic and social disparities affecting minorities. Not just current disparities but also inequalities of the past and how those could impact people's intergenerational mobility for generations to come.

The human capital theory suggests that acquiring more education and training adds to a person's skill and therefore increases productivity and efficiency. By this logic, those with more education should end up receiving higher salaries, thus there is a return to education. In this podcast we discuss how the rate of returns to education changes with the business cycle, noting the gap in the rate between women and men. Furthermore, whether or not one obtains education or not in the first place, as well as how much education they achieve depends on a variety of factors. Here, we hope to answer the question: is acquiring more education worth it?

There is an observed correlation between educational attainment and household income levels in the United States. When observing the statistics there are certainly advantages that higher income levels have over that of lower income households. This includes access to private education, tutoring services, and access to better public school districts with greater resources that lower income households don’t have access to in many cases. These advantages help contribute to the increased widening of the wage gap that is simultaneously affected by the increased demand for secondary education in the labor market. While there are other factors that can provide reasoning to education quality like cultural and social factors, the majority of inequity in education attainment correlates to different income levels.

Today we discussed cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin. This podcast discusses how the largest cryptocurrency in the world came to fruition, how the pricing of Bitcoin works, and some of the pros and cons of these coins. This podcast is not meant to be used as financial advice; we simply want to inform you about something we both believe will slowly become more integrated with society. We hope you enjoy our podcast!

Are you one of the many to receive a gift you were unsatisfied with? The concern with gift giving is the chance of preference mismatch. Thus, there is a possibility that the gift will not match the preferences of the recipient. So, is it better if we just give cold cash? In this podcast, we discover how gift giving could lead to inefficiency. Furthermore, suggestions to reverse this cycle are offered. Gift certificates, guilty pleasure gifts, and cold cash are solutions to the inefficiencies of gift giving. Also, the giver’s relationship to the recipient is researched to impact the gift value. Therefore, don’t give your significant other cash for their birthday. The closer the bond to the recipient, the greater the value for the gift. Overall, holiday spending can be effective if the buyer does research beforehand and learns the recipient's preferences.

In this episode, we explore why betting markets often outperform traditional polls in predicting election outcomes. Through historical analysis, real-world examples, and insights into how financial incentives drive better forecasting, we break down how platforms like Polymarket and PredictIt are reshaping political prediction. Tune in as we contrast the fading reliability of polls with the dynamic accuracy of election betting markets.

This podcast episode, Value Added Voyage, explores the economic policy transformation of the Bahamas, focusing on the country's transition from a tariff and customs-based tax system to a Value Added Tax (VAT) model introduced in 2015. The episode talks about the historical context, policy rationale, and economic impacts of VAT implementation on government revenue, trade, and fiscal stability. Through comparative case studies and data analysis, the podcast examines the broader implications of VAT reform, including its effects on inflation, business compliance, informality, and public perception. Drawing on both macroeconomic data and personal reflections, the episode also discusses how these reforms may offer key lessons for other developing and developed economies evaluating tax reform strategies.

Our podcast dives into the economic and social roots of happiness in Scandinavian countries, exploring what makes nations like Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden consistently rank at the top of global happiness charts. Using research from the World Happiness Reports, academic studies, and policy comparisons, we look at how factors like strong welfare systems, social trust, equitable education, environmental quality, and good governance contribute to national well-being. We also discuss economic paradoxes, like how GDP growth doesn't always mean greater life satisfaction, and examine whether these Scandinavian models can be adapted elsewhere. With data from Eastern Europe, the U.S., and Japan, we contrast different systems and ask: can other countries build societies where happiness is more than just a side effect of prosperity?

This podcast explores clean energy and economic resilience, challenging the common misconception that environmental sustainability comes at the cost of economic growth. Hosts Tyler and Meagan examine how renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro-power offer both environmental and financial benefits. The episode discusses the economic challenges of transitioning from fossil fuels, including market failures and investment risks, and highlights the important role of government policy in shaping incentives. Featuring case studies from Uruguay and Iceland, this episode analyzes how countries with varying resources have successfully implemented renewable strategies to achieve energy independence, lower costs, and foster innovation. It also addresses regional disparities, structural challenges, and investor confidence, emphasizing that thoughtful, stable planning can create equitable and prosperous clean energy transitions.

This podcast episode explores the underreported impact of the U.S.-China trade war on smaller ASEAN economies such as Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, and others. While the global spotlight remained on the economic titans, ASEAN nations deeply integrated into global value chains navigated both challenges and opportunities stemming from trade diversion, foreign direct investment shifts, and political uncertainty. Drawing on research including computer simulations and bilateral trade studies, the episode highlights Vietnam's emergence as a manufacturing hub, the risks of overdependence on China, and the broader implications for regional policy. Through a comparative lens, the discussion underscores the need for strategic diversification, infrastructure development, and multilateral cooperation as ASEAN economies reshape their roles in a fragmented global trade environment.

Austin, Patrick, and Jordan discuss the underground economy, emphasizing its vastness and complexity. They explain that it includes activities like unreported tips, off-the-books hires, and street vendors, collectively amounting to trillions of dollars globally. The underground economy can constitute up to 3% of GDP in some countries. During the COVID-19 pandemic, informal work expanded as a survival strategy. The hosts highlight the ethical dilemmas, tax implications, and unfair competition issues posed by the underground economy. They also discuss potential solutions, such as simplified licensing and tax forgiveness programs, and the challenges of eliminating it entirely.