A link to the article may be found here.
Unit 3
Within the space of about four years, the amount of tech-based businesses and start-ups in East London have quadrupled to about 1,400. Over the last four years, London officials have been pushing for the run-down eastern part of London to become a bustling hub in the workplace. Some of their businesses like King.com, the maker of the popular mobile app game Candy Crush, have been fairly successful and continue to be. These start-ups have helped to create more jobs in the London area, and they have helped to put London on the top of Tech Communities around Europe.
The interesting thing about East London compared to the continually thriving Silicone Valley is that London is the basis of a large financial oriented community in the workplace. For years and years, London has been Great Britain's New York when it comes to finance. With this background, New York is starting to feel that their competition in the business world is starting to come more from East London than Silicone Valley. The new sense of potential in the 'Tech City' of East London is starting to cause tech start-ups to wonder, "Doing business in London might not be a bad idea."
In think that the question at hand is, "What does this mean to American business? Could this potentially cause bright-minded entrepreneurs to go oversees to do tech-business?
Business is competitive, but Americans have been known to thrive on it. I think there needs to be a push from business leaders all way down to young entrepreneurs like myself to keep the money making businesses here. Sure having a global economy improving is what one would like to see, but America can't be downgrading during the process. As a people, let's continue to be innovative and one step ahead of the curve when it comes to the world of business.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Europe Cracks Down on Tobacco
The link to the article can be found here.
Unit 3
The European Parliament recently voted for some higher regulations in regards the marketing and sale of tobacco. In past years, they have been fairly lenient when comes to cigarettes, so any improvement could be considered significant. The vote among the European Parliament was successful. Lawmakers will now work with national governments to get them on board. The concern that a country wouldn't be on board with increasing regulations towards cigarettes is not a valid concern. The European Parliament frequently passes laws as a whole that help to make Europe a better place socially, economically, and politically.
There are a few things European lawmakers have decided to do about the smoking issue. First off, the Europeans decided to lawfully push tobacco companies to change their marketing in the 'warning' category. They voted to increase the warning labels to 65 percent of the front and back of cigarette packages, 40 percent above the current requirement. To put that into perspective, warning labels in the U.S. on on the sides of the packages.
The second change European lawmakers have made would tend to be unheard of in the States. They voted on banning flavored cigarettes after three years of law enactment and eight years for menthol cigarettes. The F.D.A. got a passed for the ban of flavored cigarettes in 2009, but not for menthol cigarettes. If they tried to ban all cigarettes, they probably wouldn't have been successful, but that might be a different story now.
The most interesting change The European Parliament voted on was about e-cigarettes. The pattern of being strict with regulations starts to undermine here. The e-cigarette companies pressured the European Union so that they wouldn't label their product as a drug-delivery device. It would've been interesting if the Europeans went through with that. They did vote on the same regulations as regular cigarettes regarding the marketing, but sales were centered only towards adults. Compared to the lack of the F.D.A. to regulate this product like tobacco, this is some improvement
Something the writer of this article said sparked my interest. She said, "Lawmakers have made some important steps; United States regulators should do the same."
I think that the U.S. should take more notice to the issue of cigarettes than they currently have. I understand there are priority issues, but tobacco is still an issue. Let's face it, people still die from cigarettes. Sure, I agree that we as a country need to get some other things figured out first, but we need to make some changes to the regulation of cigarettes. I know having stricter regulations for cigarettes is the same as having stricter regulations toward business, but this is different. There are things called ethics. I absolutely do not believe in a product that is harmful to its consumers. For me, products and innovation are there to improve life, not degrade it. Therefore, cigarettes should be regulated to the point that they aren't killing anyone.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
The Business Side of Obamacare
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/092513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1
Unit 2
The Obama Administration extended the date at which the aspect of Obamacare that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide full benefits, respectively to their full-time employees, to 2015. Businesses have been preparing for the day the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is enforced in a few different ways, one of them being the act of cutting hours. In a recent study, a list of states, organizations/businesses within the states, and their response to the year of preparation in respects to hour cuts, was given. 313 employers listed information on their hour cuts. Every business listed was cutting their hours so that when the Employer Mandate came, they wouldn't be overwhelmed with increased business expenses in the health care category.
I was quite surprised with how many businesses were cutting hours to avoid paying for health care they didn't want or, in some cases, couldn't necessarily afford with the amount of full-time workers. I'll be honest, I don't think that the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is going to get us anywhere with providing more health care in the work place; the current mindset of the business won't allow it. Not only is the mindset, which I will discuss later, a factor in the growing desire of businesses to pay for the least amount of health care they have to by law, but businesses are feeling pressure on their shoulders to provide healthcare or pay a tax fee; the mindset is the most important of the two.
The mindset of the average businessman consists of these: passion to have success, stubbornness to do things as freely as possible, and longing to feel like a difference is being made in their specialized area of business. Business is a competitive profession; if you don't work hard, you won't make it. So, that brings us to the why; why is the business mindset negatively influencing the Employer Mandate of Obamacare? The answer is simple; businessmen don't enjoy seeing anything get in their way of constantly trying to gain a sliver of success in their industry. Frankly, I think they're terrified, intimidated the Employer Mandate; most companies feel pressure from it.
Right along with the business mindset, there is a sense of forcefulness felt by businessmen from the government in respects to this aspect of Obamacare. It's like anything in life that makes you feel pressure, you get scared. When fear comes into play, you lose sight of the why and choose to deny that which frightens you; this is how the businessmen feel. So how can we express the why to businessmen?
I think businessmen tend to have the type of personality where they feel a need to answer the question, "What's in it for me?" Before the rant begins on what good the Employer Mandate could potentially do for spreading healthcare and wellness to hard working employees, we must consider the how; how are businessmen going to feel the need to pay for their employees health care rather than paying the mandatory tax fee.
There are three basic ideologies that would lull the average businessmen into the cradle of Obamacare: benefits and healthcare help to improve employee morale, employee work efficiency, and employee
success. With each of these boosters to employees come more benefits for the business. When employees work harder, more revenue comes in, thus more profit. When employees feel better about their work situation, customer service and loyalty skyrockets. When employees find success in their workplace, they incorporate business visions with more vigor and pride.
Unit 2
The Obama Administration extended the date at which the aspect of Obamacare that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide full benefits, respectively to their full-time employees, to 2015. Businesses have been preparing for the day the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is enforced in a few different ways, one of them being the act of cutting hours. In a recent study, a list of states, organizations/businesses within the states, and their response to the year of preparation in respects to hour cuts, was given. 313 employers listed information on their hour cuts. Every business listed was cutting their hours so that when the Employer Mandate came, they wouldn't be overwhelmed with increased business expenses in the health care category.
I was quite surprised with how many businesses were cutting hours to avoid paying for health care they didn't want or, in some cases, couldn't necessarily afford with the amount of full-time workers. I'll be honest, I don't think that the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is going to get us anywhere with providing more health care in the work place; the current mindset of the business won't allow it. Not only is the mindset, which I will discuss later, a factor in the growing desire of businesses to pay for the least amount of health care they have to by law, but businesses are feeling pressure on their shoulders to provide healthcare or pay a tax fee; the mindset is the most important of the two.
The mindset of the average businessman consists of these: passion to have success, stubbornness to do things as freely as possible, and longing to feel like a difference is being made in their specialized area of business. Business is a competitive profession; if you don't work hard, you won't make it. So, that brings us to the why; why is the business mindset negatively influencing the Employer Mandate of Obamacare? The answer is simple; businessmen don't enjoy seeing anything get in their way of constantly trying to gain a sliver of success in their industry. Frankly, I think they're terrified, intimidated the Employer Mandate; most companies feel pressure from it.
Right along with the business mindset, there is a sense of forcefulness felt by businessmen from the government in respects to this aspect of Obamacare. It's like anything in life that makes you feel pressure, you get scared. When fear comes into play, you lose sight of the why and choose to deny that which frightens you; this is how the businessmen feel. So how can we express the why to businessmen?
I think businessmen tend to have the type of personality where they feel a need to answer the question, "What's in it for me?" Before the rant begins on what good the Employer Mandate could potentially do for spreading healthcare and wellness to hard working employees, we must consider the how; how are businessmen going to feel the need to pay for their employees health care rather than paying the mandatory tax fee.
There are three basic ideologies that would lull the average businessmen into the cradle of Obamacare: benefits and healthcare help to improve employee morale, employee work efficiency, and employee
success. With each of these boosters to employees come more benefits for the business. When employees work harder, more revenue comes in, thus more profit. When employees feel better about their work situation, customer service and loyalty skyrockets. When employees find success in their workplace, they incorporate business visions with more vigor and pride.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Why gold prices are rising
August 30, 2013
Early America and the Constitution
Gold prices are continually raising in terms of worth. The price of gold per ounce just recently jumped up from $1,396 to $1,420, and not to mention it has sustained a rate no lower than $1,212 per ounce for the past three years. Gold's worth is rising because of three main things: Inflation round the globe, of course, Security as a business asset, and the demand for Jewelry is higher than ever, especially in countries like China and India.
I think this is really relevant to what we are learning about in class in terms of the economical side of government. I really appreciated one thing that the writer of this article, Steve Rothwell, said, ""If we lived in a perfect world, we would not need gold," says McGlone. "But since we don't, we do need something that is the ultimate store of value." I might be headed on a tangent by saying that he kinda sounds like John Locke in his Second Treatise on government.
I think gold is like any other product or aspect of our capitalistically driven economy, but there comes a point when I start to think, "Is there something wrong with gold gradually gaining more and more worth? How does that benefit the dollar?" I guess this means I'm asking this question to you.
Why is the rising worth of gold beneficial or why isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)