What's Wrong With Airbnb?

In the past decade a new wave of Silicon Valley start-ups have exploded into prominence, becoming part of our daily lives. Along with companies like Uber and Netflix, Airbnb is one of the top influencers in this new generation of businesses. But not all is as rosy as it seems...




The concept of Airbnb is very simple.

Source: Busbud.com

People can put their homes, apartments, lofts, spare rooms, even garages up for rent, and anyone can book them on a nightly basis. With over 2 million listings across more than 191 countries, the expansion of Airbnb has been incredible. The popularity is due to a number of reasons- not least of which are the facts that using Airbnb is incredibly easy, and, on average, a cheaper option than alternatives like booking a hotel room. It also gives people going on holiday or with spare rooms a chance to make an extra buck.

So, on the face of it, there do not seem to be any significant issues with the concept. However, the scale of Airbnb has meant that it has had rather significant implications on the property markets in which it operates. Put short- Airbnb is contributing to the economic cleansing happening in city centres throughout the world.

Economic cleansing is perhaps a rather emotive term to use, but this is, in essence, what has been happening, as landlords have sought to take advantage of the more lucrative short-term let market that it offers.

To realise the impact of Airbnb, some rough context of the property market is necessary. You've got two types of property rentals: short-term lets, and long-term lets. Long-term lets are usually taken out by people for whom the property becomes their home, whereas short-term lets are more common for vacationers. Here's the thing: short-term lets, due to their short nature, are more lucrative for landlords than long-term lets. But they come with the risk, that they are not guaranteed- while a long-term renter will mean you have someone always occupying your property and paying rent, relying on short-term rentals could leave you as a landlord with dry periods.

But in comes Airbnb, making it easier than ever for people to find short-term lets wherever they are going. The result of this is that fewer travellers choose to stay in hotels*, instead opting what may be a cheaper, or more unique Airbnb rental. So demand for short-term lets is increased- meaning landlords face less risk of facing that dry period in between short-term lets.

Seeing this risk reduced leads to many landlords deciding to pursue lucrative short-term lets- this means that many landlords will have to evict their existing long-term tenants. So, this happening on a large scale means that many people will be left looking for housing in city centres, but there will be fewer properties to choose from- because many landlords may have converted theirs into short-term exclusives. So, in a city there will be more demand for housing, but less supply.

There are significant housing crises in many of today's
major cities. 

Whenever there is more demand and less supply, prices rise. People become desperate to find housing, and the landlords still renting long-term know this- so they can jack their prices up and still find a renter. This results in significant numbers of poorer people (and even people who'd be considered well-off elsewhere) being forced to leave their area in search of affordable housing.

Most demand for Airbnb lets, and generally the most expensive/desirable areas of a city are in the centre- so this is where people are being forced out, 'cleansed', from. London, for example, is an example of a city where such 'economic cleansing' has taken place, due to a severe lack of affordable housing. Since 2011, London rents have increased by a staggering 48%, compared to incomes rising by just 11%. New York City and San Francisco face similar troubles, with housing in city centre areas becoming increasingly out of reach for those not on 6 (or in many cases even 7) figure salaries.  Of course, Airbnb is not solely to blame for this- foreign investment and failed government policies are both arguably more responsible- but amazingly, the success of this one company has had the power to exacerbate these crises that exist.

The problems caused by such a crisis are wide-reaching: homelessness, work issues and strain on infrastructure (for example, trains) are just a few.

This problem is why many cities seem to be waging war against Airbnb, using their weapon of regulation. For example, it is illegal in New York City to rent out a full apartment for fewer than 30 days**. While such regulation was previously battled against tooth and nail by Airbnb, it seems to have taken on a different tune just this month; dropping the lawsuit it took against NYC regulators, and even agreeing to abide by similar regulations in London and Amsterdam.

* Recent study by Zervas, Proserpio and Byers in USA concluded in their study of Texan demand for hotels that Airbnb's entrance into the market "has had a quantifiable negative impact on local hotel revenue". Click here to view the study.

** No doubt, it's important to remember there is a high possibility that such regulations are also being lobbied for by the hotel industry- just a thought.

The American Presidential Election: The Two Party Dictatorship

James Dancey looks into the state of affairs in the US, and a electoral system that leaves a lot to be desired. 

When talking about the US Presidential race, the name Trump or Clinton immediately springs to mind, however, the question really beckons, why only Trump and Clinton? Why is there not a larger pool of candidates to choose from?

When speaking to a disgruntled American at his apartment gathering, he seemed disappointed, yet not surprised that it once again seemed a two-party choice, between two of the most undesirable nominees in recent memory. On one hand you have the corrupt, contrived, business-minded Hillary Clinton, so prone to going back on her word there’s a 14 minute YouTube video documenting it.

Then you have Trump, who doesn’t need or deserve description. More intent on reactionary policies and attacking individuals rather than creating actual constructive solutions to genuine working class concerns, you have a choice between an extreme ‘populist’ or a moderate elitist. Why can’t a more moderate option be on the table?

There’s no law against other parties running, and often many parties do, why do the media project it as a two-horse race? Well, the financial stranglehold that both of the main parties have is the real deciding factor with many other components to be considered (which I’ll explain later), once you have that sort of margin between the two major parties and any smaller parties, it’s hard to see the electoral system as ‘Democratic’.

 In the UK, that expenditure margin is low enough to allow other smaller parties to shoehorn in a presence, we are extremely lucky in that sense to have a political system that enables lesser parties to gain significant recognition, and subsequently allow them to hold a Government to a little more account than most, with the threat of taking away their voters.

The other big problem in the USA is this longing adoration of tradition; it has been Republican versus Democrat since the beginning of time, people feel comfortable with that vote, so despite being more than prepared to select someone extreme for a nomination, they wouldn’t endorse the same person if they weren’t affiliated with one of the biggest political forces of modern day, even if they had the same funds and momentum.

Which is why Donald Trump is running under the Republican name, he has no long-term attachment or commitment to the party, he was a democrat less than ten years ago, but he needs that household name behind him to lead his ego to victory.  

Then we talk about these other parties, there is a Green party in the US believe it or not, a little less surprisingly, they barely harness 0.5% of the total Presidential Votes. There’s the libertarian party, the constitution party, all very reasonable minority parties, but all have no look in how politics in the US is shaped.

The Electoral College doesn’t help, running on a system where a state elects, and considering some states are the size of countries, it means that a lot of votes are deemed completely irrelevant on a much larger scale than nearly every other country in the world. This can be emphasised by the 2000 result in which Al Gore actually received more votes than George Bush, yet George Bush won on states. How on earth a result like that can be upheld almost seems absolutely irrational, someone who had less of the popular vote won the election, think about that.

We live in a progressive world where every vote should be valued the same, however, in this instance Gore’s votes clearly equalled a lesser value than Bush’s, or else Gore would’ve won. When you have voting on such a large scale, there is this huge fear that their vote won’t mean anything, which is why most people are forced to vote tactically for Republican or Democrat, even if their views may align more with another party.

Tragically, many people would vote for different parties if they believed they had a decent chance of winning, however, they are held back by their inhibition, only to realise that if nobody voted tactically then smaller parties would have a lot more competitive share. However, people don’t trust those around them to not vote tactically, and they end up voting tactically as well. It’s this self-fulfilling circle of two party politics caused by a winner-takes-all attitude. People are too conscious to vote outside their comfort zone.

Another huge flaw in certain states is that the electors don’t even have to elect what the people in a district vote for, which means that the people in an area could vote Republican and the elector, decide that they’re all wrong and they want a democrat instead. Can people trust electors in the current political climate? Of course not.

Is congress any better? No. Plus there’s the additional issue that delegates can select the shapes of their own districts. This can often lead to tactical shapes when they are seeking their re-election. See below. 

In these instances Ohio and South Carolina voted for the democratic party on majority, yet Republicans won a much larger share of seats, because of a tactic called gerrymandering, where politicians can redraw district lines once new voter information has been released, as you can see, this is regularly abused.

When parties redraw the district lines, it is done to make sure their party has a clear majority, locking out the main opposition, any other smaller parties who want to compete, and other independent candidates.  Instead of voters choosing their representatives, representatives choose their voters.

Clinton and Trump aren’t the only two political figures running for President, but they are the only ones who have enough money, power and media coverage to propel them towards The White House. It’s a sad state of affairs when people have two choose the lesser of two great evils, but that’s the tragic story of political entrapment in the US.

Democracy is rigged in favour of whoever is in authority, which is why the USA can be considered to have a two-party dictatorship, and until someone comes along with enough money and enough positive vision to try and sway the electorate (nearly impossible as it may be), that’s the way it will remain.  

The US Gun Dilemma

America have a serious dilemma on their hands, that no-one feels prepared to confront, says guest writer James Dancey.






It doesn’t take an idiot to realise that lack of gun regulations in the USA causes more shootings than in nearly every other country in the world.

Its homicide rate sits at over double that of other similar first world countries including Canada, Australia and the UK. 60% of those homicides are firearm contributed, no example of ridiculously easy access to firearms could be more emphasised than the recent disgraceful  homophobic terror attack on the Pulse Bar in Orlando, Florida.

Allow me to present to you a gentleman, this gentleman is Omar Mateen. He has been investigated twice for terror related incidents, he was reported to have been in a violent and abusive relationship with his ex-wife, he had to quit his job as a security guard due to aggressive tendencies, was kicked out of the police force and was also a steroid abuser. Would you give this man a gun? Of course the clear answer is no. So why was he, of all people allowed to purchase such dangerous and clearly fatal weapons?

Gun ownership in the USA (wonderslist.com)

Well because it’s land of the free, where any maniac is ‘free’ to buy a gun, and ‘free’ to commit mass homicide. Donald Trump was quick to point out that he was ‘right’ about Islamic terrorism. Now, I’m not doubting that extremism is a threat in people’s every day lives. But Mateen, was born in the US, no amount of Trump’s imposed immigration control could’ve stopped him. The only way you could’ve stopped him from committing such an atrocity is to prevent him from having access to the artillery in the first place.

Trump frequently references the second amendment on gun control, it’s strange how people are always so keen to defend an outdated piece of literature when it’s convenient for them. The idea of amendments is that they are not set in stone. A good example is the 21^st Amendment that wiped the 18^th Amendment off the books.

But of course, Congress are not interested in that, American gun retailers bring far too much money into the US Economy. In fact whenever a mass shooting occurs gun sales skyrocket which is fantastic for those businesses and their shareholders who benefit off the fear that the public hold, a fear that the next terror attack could occur in their downtown coffee shop or their children’s school. A fear that is completely justified as they are well aware these demented individuals can also get their hands on the very same weapons.

Let me say that there are no reasonable arguments for maintaining the status quo as this situation is the perfect example of what is bound to happen on an increasingly regular basis as tensions in the US rise, public paranoia and an AR-15 is not a good combination. 

Many people argue that the only option is to introduce new, harsh laws for gun control. Now I’m obviously for these suggestions, however, this does actually present a new problem. How do the Government take all these weapons that they would outlaw off the public who own them? How much domestic instability will it cause?  Surely the most delusional individuals who feel possessive over these weapons would be the most dangerous, and in return would the general public feel prepared to give up these weapons if they feel their way of life would be threatened if they did by these psychopaths.

Unlike other countries like Canada, the UK and Australia the US is absolutely huge and having it being run from such a centralised position makes it so hard to control weapons.  I fear that a harsh, immediate, reactionary law could actually cause more damage than prevent it. As proven with the futile Iraq, Libya and Syria situation we must never put the motion into emotion.

In my opinion the only way to bring about change is to ease it in gently, if you present an idea too rigidly you can often face backlash. There is still a large amount of the US population who have to be convinced that gun control is the right option despite all these horrifying shootings.

Slowly introduce laws that sanction those who are on the more unstable side of society such as criminals and just let it slowly branch across. I believe we’d see the results and people would begin to buy into the idea that actually gun control would be good. However, when people have been living with the status quo for centuries it can be hard to challenge it. But with all that said, if there’s one thing we should believe in, it is change.

Donald Trump: The King of Debt [Video]

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the USA, is pretty outrageous at times. What he says about the economy, national debt and borrowing doesn't help him either. 

Has Neoliberalism Failed America? The American Inequality Series #3

The practice of neoliberal capitalism in the USA has been the focus of much debate. In this third instalment of The American Inequality Series, we will take a look at two of the key tenets of neoliberal capitalism: the beliefs in the right of the free-market to rule the economy, and in the idea that the pursuit of self-interest will lead to the best outcome for society.

Scottish icon Adam Smith, the 'Father of Modern

Economics', laid the foundations for much of

neoliberal economic theory.

Free markets rule

An idea that has dominated Western economics for quite some time now is marginal productivity theory- the idea of the competitive, regulation-light free market being the best instrument for aligning productivity, social benefits and private returns. Essentially, those who have skills that help them to be more productive will be in more demand in the competitive market- thus their ‘price’ (income, job benefits) will be higher than those incapable of being productivity. 

This meritocratic system is what most people would like- but the key question here is how to achieve this, and marginal productivity theory answers that the free market is most effective in doing so. So to examine their claim further, what are the tenets of free marketism in the USA? Is there a ‘laissez-faire’ approach, where markets are given total free reign, or a more regulated way to keep competition alive?

A popular argument against regulating fast food chains such
as McDonalds has been that the free market will itself find the
best solution over time.

Well, as is often the case, there is no definitive answer. US economic policy is not entirely coherent (no nation’s policy is); for example, observing the lack of regulation over fast food, that has contributed to the quadrupling of adolescent obesity between 1980 and 2012, one would think America is running a free market almost fully dependent on the ‘invisible hand’, that guides resources to where they are most needed by itself. Yet a glance at antitrust laws such as The Clayton Act, that bans the monopolistic practice of merging market dominators, suggests the contrary. 

Individualism

Perhaps the most retold saying of Adam Smith is his thoughts on us as consumers, 

how "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".

Theory states that the businessman inevitably has the contentment of his customers in his own self interests- if he doesn’t make the customer happy, the customer will not return to him and thus the businessman will lose out. So following his self interests will benefit both himself and his customers.

The internet is held often as an example of such a successful self-regulating market where companies such as Google and Facebook have succeeded of their own merit, while others such as ask.com and Myspace have felt the consequences of failing to appease the market.

However, free markets have been seen by many to be against the interests of the ‘customers’. Allowing American companies to outsource employment is a pertinent example. Free international trade has allowed companies (particularly in the primary and secondary sectors) to hire cheaper employment in places like China, resulting in a wave of job losses in America. In the decade 2000-10, US multinationals sent 2.4m jobs overseas, simultaneously putting 2.9m Americans out of work.

Gates' Microsoft dominated the computer market during
the 1990s. 

Monopolies such as that of Microsoft over the IT market in the 1990s highlighted further free market failure- a lumbering giant was unrestrained from crushing competition such as Netscape, resulting in a lack of choice that prevented any market self-regulation from taking place. If people didn’t like Windows or Internet Explorer, there was nothing else they could choose- they had to deal with it, without the democratic power free market theory promised.

Paul Samuelson (the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics), claimed how “utterly mistaken was the Milton Friedman notion that a market system could regulate itself”. And while free market has arguably created the environment for new businesses to prosper, it has failed to live up to its promise of market democracy- as recent monopolistic activity and the loss of domestic employment have shown, the consumers have little power over the market.

12 Ways A Stronger US Dollar Affects The Global Economy

During the last few years, the US dollar has grown in strength. Uncertainty about the world economy has led many investors and others to turn to the US dollar. Because the greenback is backed by what many consider the most stable tax base in the world, it is considered very safe. On top of that, the US economy is still the largest, and the greenback is still the de facto global currency. It’s hard to argue against the viability of the US dollar, and with all of the uncertainty right now, it’s not surprising that many turn to the greenback for a reliable investment.

However, a stronger US dollar has very real impacts. For decades, the dollar was weakening relative to other currencies. But now, the situation has changed.Even  if the change ends up being only temporary. here  are some of the ways a stronger US dollar affects the economies of the United States and Europe:

1. US Domestic Industries Struggle with Input Costs

For US companies with foreign workers in developing nations, a stronger dollar means input costs related to labor are smaller, since a stronger dollar can buy more of a weaker currency. That’s not the story in the United States, though. With a stronger dollar, it means that US domestic labor, paid for in US dollars, is more expensive. There isn’t a lot of flexibility for these types of companies to compete on price without seeing thinner margins. As ISM falls, there is potential for GDP growth to slow as well.

2. US Exporters Likely to See Losses

Earnings season once again reminds us that US companies exporting to other countries are likely to see problems related to a stronger US dollar. With the dollar stronger relative to other currencies, it means that exporters have to lower their prices in order to prevent buyers in other countries from turning to less-expensive alternatives. This impact on US company earnings can mean a lower stock market, as well as other economic consequences.

3. European Companies Can’t Raise Prices

The ECB has been trying to keep the eurozone economy on life support since the sovereign debt crisis. Recently, the ECB instigated a quantitative easing program to help stimulate the economy with the help of inflation. However, a stronger US dollar means that it’s going to be harder for European countries to raise prices, even with the help of a policy that encourages inflation. This means a difficult time for European companies and earnings, even if eurozone countries gain a little help in the realm of export.

4. Some European Exports Might be More Attractive

With a stronger dollar on tap, some European exports might be seen as more attractive. However, this may not happen to a significant  extent unless EUR/USD actually reaches parity – or the dollar strengthens to the point that it is worth more than the euro. If the dollar’s rally continues, the eurozone might get a little export help as more buyers turn to more moderately priced goods from a weaker currency. That could help the eurozone economy recover a bit, and be useful in the event that European companies can’t raise domestic prices.

5. Germany Likely to Benefit From Exports

The German economy is likely to be the biggest winner from increased exports. German exports will be cheaper and more attractive, thanks to a strong dollar. While this is likely to help the eurozone economy overall, the fact of the matter is that it is also likely to continue to widen the gap between German economy and the eurozone economies on the periphery.

6. US Consumers See Cheaper Fossil Fuels

During the last few years, as oil prices have risen and fuel has become more expensive in the United States, strides toward an economy less dependent on fossil fuels have been made. However, now that the greenback is gaining strength, oil, which is denominated in dollars, is lower in cost. With cheaper fossil fuels comes a shift away from the development of the sustainable energy economy, and that could impact the overall economy down the road if oil prices rise again.

7. Oil Doesn’t Fall as Much for Europeans

While oil prices are lower in Europe, because of a stronger dollar, the difference would not be so  great. The currency difference means that the drop wouldn’t allow European consumers to keep as much money in their pockets (for spending on other things) as US consumers have.

8. European Tourism Industry Grows

Eurozone countries are seeing increases in their economies thanks to tourism from the United States. US tourists are visiting eurozone countries because it’s cheaper for them to do so, with the value of the euro down relative to the value of the dollar. European economies might see a little extra boost in tourism, as long as the dollar remains strong.

9. Fewer Tourists to the United States

Of course, the flip side to a growth in tourism in eurozone economies is a decrease in tourism to the United States. A stronger dollar means it’s more expensive to visit the United States, something that might pinch the American hospitality industry.

10. Cuts to US Imports Could Keep Inflation in Check

The Federal Reserve has a target inflation rate of 2.0%.. Right now, the inflation rate is nowhere near that level, and it’s not likely to do so anytime soon., because the cut to import prices (a stronger dollar means that imports to the United States appear cheaper to consumers and others) will keep inflation in check. While the Fed has said it will look at a range of factors – including unemployment – before raising rates, there really isn’t much reason to raise rates as long as other factors keep inflation in check.

11. United Kingdom Acts as an Economic Bridge

Even countries not involved in the eurozone are feeling the impact of a strong US dollar. The United Kingdom has been a sort of “go between” since the dollar has strengthened. The pound has weakened relative to the dollar, but remains strong relative to the euro. Britons can add to the rise in tourism seen in the eurozone, and continue to act as an economic bridge between the United States and the eurozone.

12. Russia Sees Mixed Results

Another European country impacted by the strong US dollar, but that isn’t using the euro, is Russia. Russia sees mixed results from a strong dollar. On one hand, a strong dollar means better export numbers for the relatively weak ruble. On the other hand, though, the strong dollar is driving down oil prices, and that hits Russia in one of its biggest economic supports.

This article was written by Miranda Marquit, and provided by Andriy Moraru- editor at EarnForex. Check out EarnForex if you want to gain a better understanding of how currencies and economic indicators work together, and how you can benefit from global currency moves.

What makes Apple so special?

This is an adaptation of a previous article on the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch.

So, just a few days ago the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus went on sale worldwide, to much fanfare, and, as with many Apple products, the traditional queuing outside Apple Stores in anticipation.

The traditional iPhone queue outside Covent Garden Apple
Store, London [Luke Westaway, CNET]

No other technology product (or any product in fact) receives this much attention. Why is it that Apple have become so desirable a brand?

Their products alone can be argued to be not that revolutionary.
The iPhone's larger displays? The Samsung Galaxy S5 currently on sale worldwide already has a 5.1 inch display, bigger than the expected 4.7 inch iPhone. The HTC One Max has a whopping 5.9 inch display, larger than the 5.5 iPhone.

NFC on the iPhone? Not a big deal. The Google Nexus 7 had that two years ago, and via Google Wallet you can already perform touch and pay payments.

Heard of this before? Don't blame you...

The Apple Watch- the first digital watch companion? Wrong again Bob- the past year has been chock full of watch announcements, from Samsung, from Motorola, and various other tech companies. They can relay notifications, they can monitor your heart rate, and they've been out for ages- heck, Samsung has already released two iterations of its Samsung Galaxy Gear.

A few weeks ago, if you didn't follow tech closely, you may not have heard of Samsung's Gear (which was first announced a year ago), or Motorola's 360 smartwatch, yet you probably would have heard of Apple's mystical 'iWatch', whose existence we were not even certain of.
Isn't this weird? Why is this?

There are numerous reasons. Many indeed. A key reason is of course the quality and consistency of Apple's product environment, and the products themselves- but Apple's business strategy also has been hugely successful.

Apple has built for itself a truly iconic brand. An Apple logo, be it on an iPod nano, an iPhone or a 27-inch iMac, carries with it connotations of high quality materials (note how commonly that silver aluminium material is used in Apple products), luxury (take a look at some of Apple's prices) and reliability (most Apple product owners would agree on this one).

A large part of this has been thanks to consistency- a key factor in a business' success, but only if it is done right- of course no company should be creating consistently poor products (*cough*Blackberry*cough*).

Apple has created consistency at every corner of its business. Take a look at the two screenshots from Apple's webpage below, and the event invite at the top of the article. The same font (Helvetica Light I am led to believe) is used consistently, the same white-grey colours, the same minimalist design in general is consistent throughout most of Apple's site.
Of course certain products are given their own display style reflective of the product's character, but in general Apple's design (be it the design of the site, the design of the advertisements or the design of the products themselves) are all cohesive. They are certainly decisively minimalist- Apple doesn't make use of any cheesy patterns or frilly designs, it just selects one or two colours and sticks with it throughout the product. And this is throughout Apple's whole product line.
The Mac line is a particularly good example of such consistency- the distinctive aluminium material used as the outer shell for the devices act as a cohesive for all Macs- it links them all together, it lets you know that an iMac is from the same family as a Mac Mini. Not only is this beneficial from a design standpoint, but it creates a subtle familiarity in product users, one that makes people more comfortable in purchasing a second or third or fourth Mac computer.

Consistency spreads further than just the design of Apple products- Apple's retail stores are among the most valuable in the world, thanks largely to their design. Apple makes use of the same materials for all the tables, the walls to give customers familiarity and comfort in their environment- while still allowing for stores to have their own individual appeal (such as the Regent Street store in London).

Consistency goes into the use of the products, too- Apple is well known for its lack of device software fragmentation (basically most Apple users are always running the same latest software on their devices, as opposed to say Android where people are spread across numerous iterations of the software, or Windows where many people are still running XP), its iCloud service allows people to access photos and videos across all of their devices without having to transfer anything manually, and features of the upcoming Mac OSX computer operating system will allow Mac users to send and receive phone calls and text messages on their computers- provided there is an iPhone connected to the same wifi network.
This feature, named Continuity, is another genius move from Apple. Creating this greater connection between the Mac and iPhone is a very effective way of attracting customers to purchase both- as items that complement each other rather than separate items completely. This could easily sway an iPhone user to purchase a Mac, and vice versa.

Through design, brand and functioning consistency Apple is successfully crafting not just a line of products but more an environment of products, all related and cooperative with one another.

We know this, perhaps unawarely, but this expectation of consistency that many people have come to associate with Apple is perhaps the greatest reason why we are so interested in the Apple Watch and the iPhone 6s, despite the competence of these products' already existent competitors.

Consistency is key in a business- and clearly for Apple, when combined with quality products, it has paid dividends, big time.

SOURCES (and recommended reads):
apple.com/iphone
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s5-1226990/review 
http://www.htc.com/uk/smartphones/htc-one-max/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/06/apple-iphone-6-event-predictions/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/05/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-an-iphone-6-or-iwatch/
http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-nfc-works-and-mobile-payments/
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/apple-iphone-6-goes-on-sale-around-the-world/

7 Shocking Facts about Economic Inequality in the USA.

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4QkvGJgDoc

The GDP growth rate in the United States of America has averaged 3.27% between 1947-2014- such a growth rate is a sign of a healthy, thriving economy. And certainly the USA's economy has thrived, but have its citizens enjoyed their fair share of the pie?

It appears not; wealth inequality has become one of the major problems in the US; numerous presidents have come and go promising reform on the matter, but little effective change has been made. 

Here are some shocking facts about just how bad the problem of economic inequality is in the USA right now.

1. CEO PAY (Business Insider)

Between 1990 and 2005, CEO pay had tripled- meanwhile the minimum wage dropped, and the pay of the average production worker increased just 4%.  
CEOs in 1965 made 24 times more than the average production worker; whereas in 2009 they made 185 times more.

2. THE USA IS THE MOST UNEQUAL ADVANCED ECONOMY... IN THE WORLD (Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook)

The USA's GINI coefficient (the most widely accepted mathematical calculation of economic inequality) is the highest of all developed economies- at 85.1%, this high GINI scores confirms America's place as the most economically unequal developed country in the world. To compare, the UK scored a modest 67.7%, China 69.5% and India 81.1%. 

3. "THE POOR STAY POOR, THE RICH GET RICHER" (Emmanuel Saez., Berkeley)

In 1982, the top 1% families in terms of salary were earning 10.8% of all income in the USA (pre-tax)- the bottom 90% received 64.7%. 
However, in 2012 the top 1% received 22.5% of pre-tax income- while the share of the bottom 90% dropped to just 49.6%.

Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez also estimates that between 2009 and 2012, the time of America's 'economic recovery', the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of total income growth.

4. CLOSE, BUT NO BISCUIT (MOTHER JONES) 

This drop in share of wages experienced by the bottom 90% comes despite the fact that productivity has drastically increased in recent decades- though this is also attributed to developments in work methods, technology- Americans are more productive today than ever- yet overall wages have overall stagnated. 

This graph shows quite clearly who has benefited from the increase in productivity.

Had median household incomes kept up with the growth of the economy since 1970, they would be around $92,000. The current median wage being $50,000 is quite a clear indication that something is out of balance.

5. DEEP IN DEBT (Domhoff, UCSC)

Meanwhile the bottom 90% enjoy responsibility of 72.5% of the US' debt, as opposed to the paltry 5.9% held by the top 1%.

6. HOMELESS AMERICA (Western Regional Advocacy Programme)

An estimated 22,000 children live homeless on the streets of New York City alone; the largest such number since the time of the Great Depression. But these children represent just a part of a nation wide problem, with roughly 1.2 million children being reported homeless in March 2014.

7. THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE? (Saez., Kopczuk., Song., Columbia University)

Despite the grand vision of the 'American Dream', the 'land of opportunity', since the 1950s probability of socio-economic mobility has been almost constantly decreasing.

The Uber Issue

Uber, a relatively new business seeking to revolutionise the taxi services of cities around the world, has been one of Silicon Valley's hottest new startups. Valued in June 2014 at $18.2 billion, the company has taken the world by storm, with its simple model: you can, via your smartphone, hail a taxi to your GPS destination, and get it to take you to any destination you choose on your device. You don't need cash- money is transferred via online payment, with a credit
card or PayPal, just with a press of a button.

Uber's driver hiring process is relatively simple- you need a car, a driving licence, insurance and need to pass various background checks. Uber takes commission from every ride and pays drivers the rest of their fees weekly.
What's more, passengers can rate and review drivers (and drivers can rate passengers), giving all parties involved the incentive to give good service.
It's a simple, efficient system.

However, Uber has come under increasing attack in recent times- not so much from its customers, or the public in general, but from its competitors (unsurprisingly) but most importantly the governments of various local and national authorities.

Cabbies took to the streets of London to protest against Uber

The main issue seems to be that Uber is undercutting local taxi fares- at most times offering fares lower than their standard counterparts. Also, Uber drivers are not forced to pass the same background checks and inspections as their counterparts- a separate background check is needed. Local cab services claim this is too dangerous and should be outlawed.
London has seen protest from taxi drivers against Uber in the form of 4000 cabbies causing a huge traffic jam in the centre of the city, claiming that Uber illegal due to its lack of a meter on every cab.

There has been anger across the world from drivers part of the same cause- to remove Uber from their streets.
Is this a fair point from the taxi drivers or are they simply trying to eradicate what they may see as a growing threat to their comparatively dated services?

Firstly, it's important to consider that Uber is usually cheaper than the regular taxi services. I took an Uber once from Paddington to a friend's house; normally it cost £24 by cab, but by Uber the same route at roughly the same time was £15.
The cheap fares, quick payment, the lack of a need for cash, these are all advantages that have made Uber so popular- and undoubtedly their nearing obsoletion is frustrating many traditional taxi drivers (though they may not admit it).
As for the question of Uber background checks, perhaps more needs to be done- Uber drivers have received their fair share of bad press, but so have taxi drivers. However, perhaps a unified background check system would ensure all transporters are relatively reliable (background checks don't ensure total safety).

As for meters, it's fair to say that they can prevent exorbitant fares- though perhaps regulation should allow for different systems of fare calculation and regulate those, rather than give them all a blanket ban.

My personal opinion is that the taxi drivers must accommodate innovation in their industry, and, even better, take it up themselves. As a customer of taxi services I want a low fare, I want to be free from the worry of 'do I have cash?', and I want to be able to pay quick and easily. I want a service like Uber, that is innovative and not caught up in 'tradition'- and obviously I am not alone, considering the company's popularity.

So perhaps taxi drivers should embrace change, and innovation. Uber has shown that in this case (though refinement is needed), it will be for the best of the average consumer.

SOURCES (and recommended reads)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/uber-drivers-will-be-fined-sa-govt/story-fnn9c0hb-1227036403657?nk=c226658d765e4f3742a7ba82aefc4ed4

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f07810f6-293f-11e4-8b81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3BPEs4lxZ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27799938

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/why-london-taxi-drivers-protesting-uber-tfl