Freakonomics: Minimum Wage

I have read the entire Freakonomics book before and am a huge fan on how Levitt and Dubner explain "the hidden side of everything". This blogpost did not disappoint as again I found it interesting how a Chris Baltman explained the minimum wage dynamic. He presented the question of whether minimum wage increases unemployment by citing sources for both Indonesia and Depression-stricken America. One of the reasons minimum wage increases worked in Indonesia and not America is because Indonesia has a much bigger under the table, informal employment market. When minimum wage increased it moved informal employment to formal businesses sectors thus increasing the demand for products on a scale of those products who are reported excluding under the table markets. They saw increased demand in localized businesses. Indonesia also has more room for improvement as they do not already have some of the new technologies that could help their market. Indonesia has much more room for new policies, increased wages, stricter labor laws, etc. America has already seen much of the reform that came to Indonesia in the 1990s. This explains why different things work for different countries. Countries are in different stages of development, have different policies, or have yet to implement new policies. Also, markets from different countries vary. They have different natural resources, different governments, different capital, and different trading agreements (tariffs).

The Uprising of Twitter

Twitter has becoming a very happening thing to do in society. You cant escape the twitter craze whether you are a teenager constantly tweeting or simply watching TV hearing "follow this [@fillinblank] on twitter". Twitter went through an approximate 6month waiting period to go public. This is huge for the company. In this process they are getting their net worth and setting fluctuating prices for the stock market. The price went up about $5 in just one week. The information is constantly changing. Twitter is also in fear of what happened in the Facebook "debacle". This whole process is nerve racking for any company even though a failed IPO does not seal a company's fate. Although other social networking sites have seen trouble, I feel as if Twitter is different. (Myspace is basically nonexistent and facebook took about a year to bounce back). Twitter is more intact with this instant source of information kinda of world we live in than other social networking sites. People are constantly giving updates on their lives and following is like the new exchange of phone number. It has also "definitely contributed to the acceleration of the news process and helped to expand the availability of information sources to a wide range of people." Twitter sees revenue from advertising and has seen so much expansion outside the United States. It is so much different than other sites which relates to the immediate success in the website's public debut.

These articles have also brought up another very interesting aspect about economies. I am no economist, but was very intrigued by the power of consumer laid out in these articles. Everything is worth how much consumers are willing to spend. It is exactly how markets are created and the principle behind the supply and demand curve. No company will truly no how much its worth until it goes public and then the companies will see exactly how much people are willing to pay for their stocks.

Bigfoot

For the matter of the shooting, three men were taken into custody and one to the hospital. It seems as this shooting was an accident and that their dishonesty to the police caused their arrests. An interesting aspect that this shooting brought up was bigfoot and our belief in the supernatural. Time and time again in history we have explained what we do not know through what is later regarded as crazy stories. Humans have this want to always establish a cause and effect relationship even when we do not have the appropriate means to do so.This has resulted in stories such as Apollo's chariot making the sun rise, etc.  It seems if we are in a way upset when scientific data refutes our bizarre explanations. Humans also want to believe in something greater than themselves that can explain the things we do not know. It offers as a money source for those who keep the myth going, and a "fun" story to go along with. 

I do not find it surprising that religion and belief in the paranormal are negatively associated. This negative association is due to the fact that religion already has explained so much of what we cannot answer through the belief in one God or for some religions multiple. The bottom line is that humans do not want to be in the dark, we want to know why things are the way they are and form a cause and effect relationship. Our bizarre stories are these answers and regardless of their sanity I will forever believe in the monsters underneath the bed. For me more because it offers so many memories from my childhood. That might hold another reason humans hold onto monsters, unicorns, ghosts, etc. We like the memories and fantasies that can come with them.