http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Catalyst+Paper+lays+workers+shuts+down+Campbell+River+mill/1307347/story.html
This article from The Vancouver Sun talks about Catalyst Paper, a paper mill company, that is to shut down its Campbell River paper mill along with laying off more than 525 people at two different mills. The layoffs and closure are due to the fact that the company might not get relief on its municipal taxes, which are $23 million a year. Approximately 350 people work at the paper mill and if the markets don't recover within the next six weeks, then one of its mills may be eliminated. Catalyst Paper is experiencing declining prices and volumes in all of their major markets, and a big issue for the company is taxes.
The concept that relates to Chapter 5 from this article is demand-deficient unemployment. Demand-deficient unemployment results when there is a lack of overall spending in the economy. Although Catalyst Paper is not an actual store and does not sell directly to customers, it can be affected by demand-deficient unemployment. Even though taxes are one of the main issues of the layoffs, it is probably safe to say that the economic recession has a part in this. The businesses that Catalyst Paper sends their products to probably aren't selling very well; therefore they wouldn't need as many workers at the paper mill to make their products.
Pretty much the whole world has seen some form of recession in the last year or so. Many companies from all over are laying off workers and having to shut down various stores. Personally, I don't feel too much of a difference even with the recession. Day-to-day life seems the same, but that's probably because I'm not in the workforce. However, it seems that most if not all of my relatives are doing relatively fine as well. There may be layoffs here and there but none of them affecting the part of the company that they work for. We can only hope that this "economic crisis" will soon be lifted.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Chapter 4
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/04/22/budget-follow.html
This article from cbc.ca talks about how Alberta is spending too much money and saving too little. The budget for Alberta is $37-billion, which includes a three-year, $22.2-billion construction program for schools, roads, and health-care facilities. As for savings, only $279-million is to be set aside for the province. The Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Scott Hennig, has said that the government needs to plan for a time when there is little energy revenue. He said, "They'll have no choice essentially to raise taxes or cut spending or dip into savings or go back into debt. I mean those are just four horrible options that this government's going to have to look at if prices drop."
Chapter 4 mentions the growth of government spending. Although the article doesn't specifically mention it, Wagner's law of increasing state activity seems to be a concept as well. According to the article, Alberta is doing some "record spending" even though it plans to save more in the coming year. Two-fifths of the entire spending in Canada is controlled by the government. $37-billion and $279-million is a big difference, so it's clear that Alberta's spending is very high. Wagner's law of increasing state activity states that government expenditures can be expected to grow faster than the total output of goods and services in industrialized economies. There are many factors involved in increased government spending, including the transition from a rural to urban country and the government becoming more involved in the education system. These are true for Alberta, considering there is the $22.2-billion construction program for roads and schools.
Alberta isn't the only province to have increased government spending. BC is definitely one of them. Since Vancouver got chosen to host the 2010 Olympics, there have been millions and millions of dollars put into the budget for the Olympic Games. Just recently, there was news of going over the budget and having to spend even more money. Personally, I'm pretty glad that Vancouver gets to host the Olympics, but then again, $1.6-billion is a lot to be spending on building things that will be used for two weeks. Of course, the venues will probably be turned into something else or used for different occasions in the future, so perhaps the Olympics will be some sort of investment for us.
This article from cbc.ca talks about how Alberta is spending too much money and saving too little. The budget for Alberta is $37-billion, which includes a three-year, $22.2-billion construction program for schools, roads, and health-care facilities. As for savings, only $279-million is to be set aside for the province. The Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Scott Hennig, has said that the government needs to plan for a time when there is little energy revenue. He said, "They'll have no choice essentially to raise taxes or cut spending or dip into savings or go back into debt. I mean those are just four horrible options that this government's going to have to look at if prices drop."
Chapter 4 mentions the growth of government spending. Although the article doesn't specifically mention it, Wagner's law of increasing state activity seems to be a concept as well. According to the article, Alberta is doing some "record spending" even though it plans to save more in the coming year. Two-fifths of the entire spending in Canada is controlled by the government. $37-billion and $279-million is a big difference, so it's clear that Alberta's spending is very high. Wagner's law of increasing state activity states that government expenditures can be expected to grow faster than the total output of goods and services in industrialized economies. There are many factors involved in increased government spending, including the transition from a rural to urban country and the government becoming more involved in the education system. These are true for Alberta, considering there is the $22.2-billion construction program for roads and schools.
Alberta isn't the only province to have increased government spending. BC is definitely one of them. Since Vancouver got chosen to host the 2010 Olympics, there have been millions and millions of dollars put into the budget for the Olympic Games. Just recently, there was news of going over the budget and having to spend even more money. Personally, I'm pretty glad that Vancouver gets to host the Olympics, but then again, $1.6-billion is a lot to be spending on building things that will be used for two weeks. Of course, the venues will probably be turned into something else or used for different occasions in the future, so perhaps the Olympics will be some sort of investment for us.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Chapter 3
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20081120/OPINION03/811200315
The News-Star, a Louisiana newspaper, had an article about trying to reduce the impact of youth smoking. It talks about how youth can have a big impact for the people that smoke and how there's going to be a youth-led anti-tobacco movement. Their focus is to keep teenagers from starting to smoke, and one of the campaigns is called Raiseup. The goal of Raiseup is to raise the excise tax on cigarettes by $1, where the revenue would go to Louisiana's budget. The article states that "studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the excise tax, youth smoking decreases by 7 percent."
In Chapter 3, an important concept is about excise taxes, which are taxes levied by the government on the suppliers of certain products. The taxes may be used as a source of revenue for the government. In relation to the article, the revenue from the excise tax on cigarettes would go to the state's budget. Along with that, they're hoping that by raising the excise tax, this will help to stop teens from starting to smoke. With the majority of teens, price is a factor for a lot of things, so raising the excise tax on cigarettes may be the solution to reduce teen smoking.
Everyone's probably been exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives, and for those who don't smoke, it's probably just plain disgusting. I don't encourage smoking either, so I think it's a pretty good idea to raise the excise tax for cigarettes. A lot of teens don't work, and for the ones that do, it would be part time and roughly $10/hour, which doesn't add up to nearly as much as a full-time working adult. If there is a price increase, many teens won't be able to afford it, so hopefully they'll think twice before the start. On the other hand, teens who are already addicted to it will probably find some other way to get it, like sponging them off of wealthier friends or family.
The News-Star, a Louisiana newspaper, had an article about trying to reduce the impact of youth smoking. It talks about how youth can have a big impact for the people that smoke and how there's going to be a youth-led anti-tobacco movement. Their focus is to keep teenagers from starting to smoke, and one of the campaigns is called Raiseup. The goal of Raiseup is to raise the excise tax on cigarettes by $1, where the revenue would go to Louisiana's budget. The article states that "studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the excise tax, youth smoking decreases by 7 percent."
In Chapter 3, an important concept is about excise taxes, which are taxes levied by the government on the suppliers of certain products. The taxes may be used as a source of revenue for the government. In relation to the article, the revenue from the excise tax on cigarettes would go to the state's budget. Along with that, they're hoping that by raising the excise tax, this will help to stop teens from starting to smoke. With the majority of teens, price is a factor for a lot of things, so raising the excise tax on cigarettes may be the solution to reduce teen smoking.
Everyone's probably been exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives, and for those who don't smoke, it's probably just plain disgusting. I don't encourage smoking either, so I think it's a pretty good idea to raise the excise tax for cigarettes. A lot of teens don't work, and for the ones that do, it would be part time and roughly $10/hour, which doesn't add up to nearly as much as a full-time working adult. If there is a price increase, many teens won't be able to afford it, so hopefully they'll think twice before the start. On the other hand, teens who are already addicted to it will probably find some other way to get it, like sponging them off of wealthier friends or family.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Chapter 2
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=6bbbbce7-4968-4a3e-8766-2fa405aa9eab
This article from The Vancouver Sun talks about the rise of gas prices in relation to hurricanes Ike and Gustav. Back in September, gas prices shot up when hurricane Ike struck, and since then, there had been debates about whether the soaring prices were due to the weather or gasoline companies taking advantage of it. Industry analysts claimed that the blame was to be put on the shortage in supply of gasoline and energy analysts said that it's a matter of supply and demand. Canadian politicians debated this, offering their opinions on what they would do to consumers who were faced with this price hike.
The connection to Chapter 2 of Economics is the concept of supply and demand. Supply refers to those who are willing to sell a good or service while demand refers to those who are willing to purchase a good or service. In the article, Liberal leader Stephane Dion states that "the main reason why the price of oil is set to go up ... is because humanity is asking for more and more oil, [and] you have demand that is booming much faster than the supply." In the case of this article, consumers are demanding for more gas, yet suppliers are more reluctant to sell it at the same price because of the hurricanes, hence the price hike.
I have noticed the significant rise in gas prices since the beginning, but since I don't own a car, it doesn't directly affect me. However, I know that it obviously affects other people who do own cars and rely on it to get to their destinations. Perhaps the whole concept of supply and demand and rising gas prices will make drivers think twice before driving their cars everywhere and also about the impact of driving has on the environment. I do wonder though, if or when I decide to purchase a car in the future, whether or not the price of gas would've skyrocketed some more. If so, is it because of supply and demand or just a way of trying to force people to drive less, and if not, would the demand for gas have gone down?
This article from The Vancouver Sun talks about the rise of gas prices in relation to hurricanes Ike and Gustav. Back in September, gas prices shot up when hurricane Ike struck, and since then, there had been debates about whether the soaring prices were due to the weather or gasoline companies taking advantage of it. Industry analysts claimed that the blame was to be put on the shortage in supply of gasoline and energy analysts said that it's a matter of supply and demand. Canadian politicians debated this, offering their opinions on what they would do to consumers who were faced with this price hike.
The connection to Chapter 2 of Economics is the concept of supply and demand. Supply refers to those who are willing to sell a good or service while demand refers to those who are willing to purchase a good or service. In the article, Liberal leader Stephane Dion states that "the main reason why the price of oil is set to go up ... is because humanity is asking for more and more oil, [and] you have demand that is booming much faster than the supply." In the case of this article, consumers are demanding for more gas, yet suppliers are more reluctant to sell it at the same price because of the hurricanes, hence the price hike.
I have noticed the significant rise in gas prices since the beginning, but since I don't own a car, it doesn't directly affect me. However, I know that it obviously affects other people who do own cars and rely on it to get to their destinations. Perhaps the whole concept of supply and demand and rising gas prices will make drivers think twice before driving their cars everywhere and also about the impact of driving has on the environment. I do wonder though, if or when I decide to purchase a car in the future, whether or not the price of gas would've skyrocketed some more. If so, is it because of supply and demand or just a way of trying to force people to drive less, and if not, would the demand for gas have gone down?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chapter 1
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12270990
The main question that this article from Economist.com is asking is whether or not a university degree is really worth the time and money. The point of the article is unclear in the first half, but is more direct later on. It goes on to say that the main reason for students moving on to higher education to obtain a degree is to improve their careers and salary. Far less students wanted a degree because they enjoyed a particular area of interest. There has been a 30% increase for students entering university compared to the 1990s. Aside from students wanting to get a degree, the name of the university matters as well.
One of the introductory concepts of economics is opportunity cost, which is what someone gives up when they make a decision. In this article, the opportunity cost for a student going towards getting a degree would be giving up time that could be spent earning money. However, a student deciding to work right away and not going for a degree would be giving up the chance to further his or her education and landing a job with better pay. Along with that, students would have to consider their field of study and whether or not they would pursue a career in something they enjoy for less money or something they dislike for more money.
Considering I myself am nearing the end of my high school career and I need to start thinking about my future. I have a pretty general idea of what I'd like to do. In my personal opinion, I would go on to post-secondary in hopes of going into a career with a good pay because in the long run, I would probably end up making more money than if I choose not to go with the post-secondary route and work during those 4 years. I may be in it partially for the money, but I would definitely study something I love and going to post-secondary can only increase my knowledge of it.
The main question that this article from Economist.com is asking is whether or not a university degree is really worth the time and money. The point of the article is unclear in the first half, but is more direct later on. It goes on to say that the main reason for students moving on to higher education to obtain a degree is to improve their careers and salary. Far less students wanted a degree because they enjoyed a particular area of interest. There has been a 30% increase for students entering university compared to the 1990s. Aside from students wanting to get a degree, the name of the university matters as well.
One of the introductory concepts of economics is opportunity cost, which is what someone gives up when they make a decision. In this article, the opportunity cost for a student going towards getting a degree would be giving up time that could be spent earning money. However, a student deciding to work right away and not going for a degree would be giving up the chance to further his or her education and landing a job with better pay. Along with that, students would have to consider their field of study and whether or not they would pursue a career in something they enjoy for less money or something they dislike for more money.
Considering I myself am nearing the end of my high school career and I need to start thinking about my future. I have a pretty general idea of what I'd like to do. In my personal opinion, I would go on to post-secondary in hopes of going into a career with a good pay because in the long run, I would probably end up making more money than if I choose not to go with the post-secondary route and work during those 4 years. I may be in it partially for the money, but I would definitely study something I love and going to post-secondary can only increase my knowledge of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
