Using the Past to Pave the Future – The Toy Industry

December 8, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

These days, it seems that everyone from factory workers to United States president-elect Donald Trump cannot help but reminisce about the ever-vague “good old days.” Many say these were simpler, more predictable times, and it was easy to repeatedly use the same strategy to find success. This is no longer the case, and people and industries as a whole have had to shift their mindsets and continuously innovate in order to stay afloat. This is perhaps most evident in the toy industry and Toys “R” Us specifically as both have been through a roller coaster of progress throughout the last few decades as technology has gotten better and toy preferences have changed.

The modern toy industry was born at the end of World War II. The Great Depression and the World Wars did not leave people with much spending money, but the return of prosperity and the introduction of television and plastic propelled modern American consumption. This was perfect timing for Toys R Us founder Charles Lazarus, who believed that “toys are a great kind of thing to sell, because they don’t last that long.” Lazarus’ strategy was to offer name-brand merchandise at less than list price, and toy manufacturers were willing to compromise because Toys R Us was one of the only retailers that offered year-round sales. Traditionally, toy stores did 70% of its sales during the 6 weeks leading up to Christmas. This meant that the carefully selected stocks of toys were cut dramatically from January to August, which made the toy year short and unsustainable. Toys R Us was unique in that its stocks were maintained throughout the year with toys from manufacturers’ entire catalogues.

Toys R Us stores revolutionized the toy industry. Whereas toy stores used to be small with much of their merchandise stashed in the back room, Toys R Us introduced the warehouse shopping experience. Toy packaging design was now centered on how it would look on the shelf, and from 1975 to 1985, annual revenues at Toys R Us grew from just over $200 million to over $2 billion. The emphasis on the shopping experience worked, and it brought in great success for that time.

Ironically, the toy’s short lifecycle that attracted Lazarus in the first place needed to be adjusted in order for the industry to have consistent sales. Toys that only get played with once or twice is a waste of money in the parents’ eyes, so for a line to stay popular over time, children must want to continue playing with it. The emphasis on sustainable toy lines also keeps prices down by allowing manufacturers more time to get their return on investment while keeping quality up. Children only return to a toy if it has a deeper meaning than just being a plastic object. This could be in the form of a story that is supplemented by a television short or a movie. In the 1980s, the Cabbage Patch dolls and the Transformers took exactly this route, which allowed children to better relate to their toys. Unfortunately, the 90s brought the Internet and technology that offered instant gratification, and static toys no longer held the same appeal.

Instead of producing a toy and creating a story to go with it, toymakers began seeing the benefit of making the two a more streamlined experience through videogames or interactive toys. Videogames tell the story over time, and children can play by themselves in a way that keeps them engaged. In the early 90s, toy spending peaked for four-year-olds, but by the end of the decade, the peak for spending was for three-year-olds. Children were simply outgrowing their toys earlier and finding more interest in electronic games at a younger age.

This shift forced Toys R Us to revamp their stores, and in 1998, it greatly expanded its electronic section. While this was new for Toys R Us, its competition already offered that and more. Wal-Mart, Target, and other discount stores put pressure on Toys R Us as they captured more and more of the toy business. In the mid-90s, Toys R Us held 20% of the market, and Wal-Mart and Target were insignificant. By 2004, Wal-Mart had 20% of the market, Target had 18%, and Toys R Us was down to 17%.

In the 90s, many moms including Kathy Klatman used to regularly shop at Toys R Us, buying dolls and play sets from the toy giant. By the mid-2000s, all of the toys she bought fell into two categories: the more expensive toys, such as American Girl Dolls, were bought through catalog, and the cheap toys, like Matchbox cars, were purchased during her weekly shopping trips to Target. Unfortunately, this did not leave much space for Toys R Us. Klatman says that her kids “already have so many things to play with that [she has] a tendency to look for quality and whether they will play with it for a long time.” When the kids need to be pacified with a simple toy, she can easily pick them up at Target cheaper than she could at Toys R Us.

This was a troubled time for Toys R Us; however, the retailer came up with a plan to stay competitive. In 2000, Amazon and Toys R Us signed a ten-year agreement in which Amazon would devote part of its website to products chosen specifically by Toys R Us. This allowed Toys R Us to select the most popular products and get them to customers more easily. This alliance was widely applauded as a seamless connection between traditional brick-and-mortar stores and new-age Internet companies, but it eventually became entangled in allegations that both sides were not doing as they promised. Toys R Us accused Amazon of allowing other companies to sell toys through their website, and Amazon claimed that Toys R Us was not maintaining a high quality selection of toys. The biggest problem was that online toy sales just were not at the level that both parties anticipated, so they were not making the profits they hoped. By 2004, lawsuits from both sides effectively ended their contract, and Toys R Us was left on its own again.

Toys R Us was at a crossroads. It seemed on the verge of collapse as its market share decreased and the falling out with Amazon worsened. Toys R Us had actually given up rights to its own website in its partnership, so there was not much hope for a quick rebound in online sales. However, Toys R Us was more motivated than ever to take back their place at the top of the toy industry, and they did so by acquiring three pertinent brands: FAO Schwartz, eToys.com, and KB Toys. As much as Toys R Us suffered during this period, its smaller rivals were on the verge of bankruptcy, which meant that Toys R Us could acquire them at a relatively low cost. The acquisitions allowed Toys R Us access to the companies’ established websites, trademarks, and some of their stores. All three of these companies already had well-known brand names, which gave Toys R Us the opportunity to sell a wider variety of products.

To give a greater push during the holidays, Toys R Us began opening temporary pop-up stores that were smaller but require less staff and stock. They were located in malls and shopping centers that could not hold the traditionally massive warehouses of Toys R Us. The widespread and obvious presence of the retailer garnered high sales and happy customers. This was so successful that the company ended up keeping a third of its locations after the holidays in 2010.

Toys R Us also benefitted as the industry as a whole made its comeback. From 2014 to 2015, annual toy sales rose over 6% to $19.9 billion, which was the largest increase in ten years. Popular Hollywood films fueled the popularity of collectibles, which boosted sales like it had in the 80s and 90s. This not only appealed to children, but it also helped toy manufacturers capture the preteen and adult crowds with paraphernalia from movies like Star Wars. Even Frozen, a movie targeted for children, was able to become a top toy brand with $531 million in sales in 2014.

There were also huge developments in technology, which gave toys the ability to interact with children in a more animated and stimulating way. Toys are able to interpret speech and react in the appropriate way using chip technology, which has become cheaper and more powerful. Dolls can have conversations with users and toy cars can be controlled by smartphones. The new Barbie Dreamhouse by Mattel is voice activated, and the music, appliances, and even the elevator can be controlled by simple commands. In this modern era of touch screens and applications, toy manufacturers have to put in extra effort to make sure that physical toys can compete with the seemingly limitless iPads and smartphones.

As for its competition, Toys R Us can be proud to report strong sales, especially during the holiday season. Sales went up 3.7% in the holiday season of 2015 compared to that of 2014 for stores open at least a year. The demand was high for toys, learning products, and seasonal goods, and low for electronics, video game consoles, and videogames. The advantage that Toys R Us has over Wal-Mart and Amazon is that Toys R Us is in the toy business for the entire year, whereas its competition only pushes toy sales during the end of the year. Vendors know this, and they can give Toys R Us more favorable margins.

Toys R Us also has had great success internationally, especially in Canada and Japan. Sales went up 13% in Canada in 2015, and Toys R Us became the largest retailer of children’s products in Japan. The retailer used partnerships to cater to the Japanese market specifically, and there was a strong cultural fit. Japanese families often allow children to choose their own gifts, so the store layout and experience was well-matched with their culture.

Looking to the future, Toys R Us CEO Dave Brandon wants to revamp its stores by turning them into an experiential destination. By creating an interactive space, he hopes that children will begin dragging their parents down to the stores to play at Toys R Us on weekends. Children already love the store, and by giving it this new dimension, they will want to continue going back. The company is now testing sound effects and colorful lights, and they are unboxing more toys in play areas. They are also hosting events including card trading and birthday parties.

Toys R Us is already moving towards their goals, and by mid-2017, the company projects 14% inventory growth. This will make their inventories at the highest amount in almost a decade, and it is proof that they are serious about putting money back into operations. Toys R Us seems to be moving in the right direction, and now it is a waiting game whether the company will go for an initial public offering. The retailer needs to have a successful 2016 holiday period in order to lay the groundwork for a potential second run at an IPO. Toys R Us was a public company until 2005, when it was taken private by investors for $6.6 billion. With strong sales and measureable improvements, 2017 may be the right time for private equity backers to strike. The toy industry will continue to be volatile as technology changes and competition gets tighter; however, Toys R Us has been in the game for quite a while now, and it has gained knowledge and experienced that will help it navigate the whirlwind of its market. Toymakers have every reason to root for Toys R Us, and hopefully, the children of today and the future will make Toys R Us great again.

Costs of Climate Change – Thanks Trump

November 22, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

Scientists have researched climate change for over three decades, gathering information about how the human population and our actions have affected the global temperature. At this point, there is little scientific dispute about climate change, but the United States’ newest president-elect seems to have other ideas. Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax, and he has already appointed some skeptics to his energy and environmental transition team, including Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. On November 21, 2016, Trump released a YouTube video detailing some of his plans for his first 100 days in office, and unsurprisingly, one of his goals is to end restrictions on energy production. Overall, the situation is not looking great for the status of our environment, so it may be important to look at what costs this will bring us in the future.

One important note about climate change is that it is essentially irrevocable and has a foreseeable time limit. The more we ignore this problem, the greater the problem becomes. This means that it continuously gets more expensive as a result. In 2015, Citigroup estimated that if we do not act, the cost will be up to $44 trillion by 2060. In this scenario, everyone continues living the way they have been, and we maintain the level of progress that has been made. Trump’s desire to lift energy regulations actually sets us backwards on the scale, and it is hard to imagine what the costs would be then. Last week, senior scientists said that if Trump carries through with all of his promises from his campaign, it might as well be “game over” for the environment.

Climate change is not a zero sum game. There are costs to acting and not acting, but it is important to weigh the difference. Many argue that low oil prices have lowered motivation to look for alternative sources of energy. While it may be less attractive to invest time and money into renewables, it could also be argued that because oil is so cheap, there is more space to spend money on energy efficiency without halting the global economy.

For Trump, this future catastrophe is not a huge deal because it most likely will not happen in his lifetime. For today’s millennials, climate change is yet another cost that they will have to incur. Millennials are already dealing with low incomes, high debt, and the heavy weight of social security and healthcare. This is especially detrimental to low-income, vulnerable populations because these groups are always hit the hardest in economic declines.

All of the monetary costs aside, climate change itself can and will do its own damage to the planet. There will be more frequent and extreme weather cases, disease, and deteriorating farm yields. Additionally, there will be an increase in climate-related disturbances including soil change, drought, and flooding. We are already seeing some uncharacteristically dangerous hurricanes and storms that cause severe destruction, such as Hurricane Sandy on the east coast of the US. The young people of today will have to deal with all this in a few years, and it is unclear whether or not this is even possible.

NAFTA – Not as Bad as Everyone Says?

November 3, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

Since it took effect in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement and its impacts have been discussed by everyone from laborers to political leaders. By establishing a free-trade zone in North America, it lifted tariffs on the majority of goods produced in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This increased the fluidity of products among the three countries, and lately, there has been a focus on how detrimental this is to the US economy.

Take a look at the textile industry. Before NAFTA, the denim industry employed 500,000 American workers, but today, there are only 130,000 left. At a quick glance, NAFTA could be blamed for this because it is the reason why so many companies moved to Mexico in search of cheaper labor and lower overall costs. Free trade allowed American manufacturers to turn to other countries in order to better compete with domestic and international companies. In terms of the laborers left without jobs, older workers especially were forced to turn to lesser paying jobs like working at Wal-Mart or other low-wage, hourly positions. All of this makes NAFTA look rather bleak, but it is important to look at the gains NAFTA has also produced.

Close to 6 million jobs in America depend on trade with Mexico, and nearly 40% of US imports from Mexico are derived from US sources. Compared to only 5% previous to NAFTA, this increase signals some of the agreement’s successes. Going back to textiles, shipments in this industry have actually gone up since 1994 due to the fact that it became much cheaper. In reality, the job losses and trade deficit that is often blamed on NAFTA have other pertinent causes.

University of Pennsylvania Wharton professor Mauro Guillen believes that many of the jobs lost from 1994 through now would have been lost regardless of NAFTA to countries with cheaper labor such as China. NAFTA simply accelerated the process and redirected the manufacturing capacity to Mexico rather than Asia. In 2013, the trade deficit with Mexico was $54 billion, but the deficit with China was $318 billion. America’s deficit with China is five times its deficit with Mexico, which means that jobs were going to be lost to foreign countries either way. If anything, NAFTA allowed North America to create a cheaper and more seamless supply chain that benefitted American companies.

New technology improvements such as automation and robotics have also reduced the necessary number of workers, so even if jobs had not moved across borders, there would have been a downsizing in employees regardless. Many of the products made in foreign countries are also designed in the US, which opens up another set of American job opportunities.

Finally, it is important to look at the positive effects NAFTA had on Mexico’s economy. Free trade allowed Mexican workers job opportunities, and while Mexicans had previously been the largest source of immigrants to America since 1940s, immigration patterns are now reversing. More Mexicans are leaving America than coming in, and some of this can be accredited to the fact that Mexico is performing so well. It is easy to blame other countries for our own problems, but maybe Americans need to take a closer look at the true culprit.

Homeownership: Young Adults and the American Dream

October 11, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

Residential investment currently accounts for about 5% of the United States gross domestic product. Considering the US GDP stands at just under 18 trillion dollars, housing is clearly a significant portion of American spending. As a major driver of economic growth, housing indicates the wealth of the people, but since the 2008 recession, it has taken a dip, and it is important to examine why. At 35%, the largest generational group of buyers consists of millennials between the ages of 18 and 34, but since the 1980s, the probability of this age group owning a home has gone from almost 17% to just under 14%. The question now is whether this is a permanent change or if it is just a fluke due to the economic crisis.

In the early 2000s, credit was very cheap, and this led to banks loaning money to people who probably should not have been given that responsibility. They took this money and bought up homes because they were known as a stable, surefire investment. Eventually, these people struggled to pay back their loans, and the bubble burst, causing banks to suddenly tighten up and be wary of loaning money. This does not bode well for average young adults because they do not have a long financial history to back up their ability to pay off loans. Right now, young adults are also being hit with a plethora of other problems, such as student debt and a flailing job market. The average college graduate in 2015 has to pay back over $35,000, which is more than double the amount borrowers had to pay back only 20 years ago even when adjusted for inflation. What is worse is that 44% of college graduates in their 20s are stuck in low-wage, dead-end jobs. With such shallow income-growth trajectories, millennials are more focused on paying current bills and making rent every month than saving for their future home.

This goes against the fundamental “American Dream,” which is a traditional idea consisting of three entities: job, family, and home. The hope is that with hard work and determination, one can acquire a high-paying job and eventually purchase a home for his or her family. As a result, young Americans have set life goals around hitting milestones to put them on this path, but as illustrated above, this “dream” is increasingly becoming out of reach.

The share of young homeowners has fallen steadily for the last thirty years, which means many millennials have taken up a new, or perhaps old, residence: living with their parents. For the first time in 130 years, the most common living arrangement among millennials is sharing a home with their parents, and over one-third of this generation is choosing to do so. Much of this can be blamed on the recession. Young adults do not have the money for a down payment or the continuous stream of bills stemming from mortgage and upkeep. Additionally, the housing market is not making this any easier with its increasing market prices and decreasing number of available affordable homes. Young people say they will move out the day they can afford it, but that day is looking depressingly out of reach.

For some, this situation is old news. Those who grew up in poor neighborhoods have always been less likely to be motivated to leave their hometown. These young adults probably will not go too far for college, and they are stuck doing low-wage jobs that, even in the long run, will not provide enough income for them to save and eventually spend on their own house. Those in this group are more likely to live with their parents and may be providing for the family just to make ends meet. Their situation is dire, and they are bound to a place that cannot allow them to grow and prosper.

On the other hand, take a look at those who have the greatest chance of being able to afford their own home. These include high-achievers who tend to come from rich backgrounds, move away for college, and settle in popular cities with a concentration of jobs like San Francisco or New York. Compared to the first group, this group has drastically more resources and therefore more freedom to set their own priorities. However, they are still not buying homes, but this could actually signal a cultural shift and a delaying of the whole process. There are many rational reasons why a young person of decent money would want to wait to splurge on a home, and it is possible this is due to a change in mindset.

For one, the rent in the cities mentioned above has reached astronomical, and for many, unaffordable levels. In both New York and San Francisco, the average square footage of a one-bedroom apartment is 750 square feet. This is a comfortable size for at most two people. The median rent per month for this apartment is $2,200 in New York and an outrageous $3,600 in San Francisco. This means that per year, those who choose to live in these cities are committing between $26,400 and $43,200 to solely rent. For many, moving to these cities is not so much a choice as it is the best way to find a career in their desired industry. New York is a financial district, and San Francisco is the land of the start-ups. There are definitely more job opportunities, but as a location gains popularity, it also gets more expensive. This leaves little room for young adults to save a large enough sum for their own property.

Millennials also have this newfound desire for flexibility, and homeownership does not allow that. Many graduates have the mindset that they will take a job for at maximum a few years and then move onto something else. In fact, it is completely normal for millennials to switch jobs an average of four times in their first decade out of college, and more often than not, this career change also results in a location change. This demands the ability to be mobile, and renting means that once the contract is up, renters can move out without having to worry about finding someone else to take their place. Selling a house requires a whole other set of considerations, such as possible remodeling and hiring an agent in order to get the best price. From this point of view, renting property simply provides conveniences that buying does not.

Consider a newly married couple where the wife works at a large insurance company and the husband is a doctor. This couple has moved three times during their time together: once from college to medical school, again for medical school to residency, and one more time for the husband’s first real job. Throughout the years, the couple has accumulated a healthy sum in comparison to others in their age group, but because of their tendency to hop from place to place, they do not see the point in buying a house. Selling after just a few years does not provide much profit, even in high-income areas, and moving without selling the house does not make much sense. Years ago, it was uncommon for people to move across the country multiple times, so there was not much risk involved when buying a house. For young people nowadays, this is rather commonplace, so they have a totally different mindset than their parents did. Norms are changing, and that means cultural decision-making is changing as well.

On top of this, there is currently a shortage of starter homes, so young people have a very limited set of options. Housing starts went way down after 2008, and it is slow going on its journey back to pre-crisis levels. Instead, new construction is now being focused on the luxury side, so homes that used to be entry-level are now priced above what young adults can pay. Because of increasing expectations, the new supply is being adjusted to fit the demand. Getting fancier also means getting more expensive, which only prices out the people who actually want to purchase their first home. This is clearly a vicious cycle.

Money is a driving factor in most decisions. It hides behind other reasoning and provides concrete limits, but maybe it should not be the first thing people blame for the decline in homeownership. Perhaps it is simply a change in the mindset and priorities of millennials that has veered tradition off course.

Product sharing is an idea that can only exist in modern age companies because of not only technology but also the cultural shift mentioned above. One example is Zipcar. It boasts over 700,000 members, which makes it the largest car-sharing company in the world. Members are able to borrow these cars from various locations, and Zipcar covers gas and insurance. These conveniences are highly appealing to many people because this eliminates two large worries associated with owning a car. There is also no need to search and pay for long-term parking, which can reach exorbitant levels in big cities. If people do not want to worry about parking at all, they can turn to Uber or Lyft and simply pay for the ride itself. This “sharing” business model has been repeated across industries, including Airbnb for housing, Rent the Runway for clothing, and Spinlister for sports equipment. The list goes on. Sharing companies are now commonplace, and they are born out of a newfound prioritization of convenience and flexibility.

Regardless of the cause, the decline of homeownership has very real implications, and it is telling about the health of the economy. High levels of homeownership signal a certain confidence among buyers. They believe they can make good on payments, and this means they are earning a comfortable wage. Typically, a family’s largest purchase is their home, and home purchasing decisions are telling of the nation’s economic development. Families exhibit their buying power through what home they choose to purchase, but if they no longer have the desire to buy a home, this affects other industries as well. For example, urban planners who map out entire neighborhoods of homes suddenly have less demand, and construction workers have fewer jobs as a result. There are also real estate agents and others who have fewer sales to make, and the list goes on. Changes in the housing market no doubt affect the greater economy, which is why the decline in homeownership is so alarming.

At least at this stage in their lives, millennials simply place less of an emphasis on actually owning items than past generations have, and this translates to a decrease in young adult homeownership. However, this does not mean that young adults do not hope to one day own their own homes. Among millennials, 65.3% still associate homeownership with the American dream, and more than half of all millennials expect to buy a home within the next five years(USAToday). Their plans may be delayed, but there is definitely still a checkbox next to homeownership that they hope to tick off within their near future. The American dream lives on; the millennials just need more time to get there.

Adapting Immediacy – The Fashion Industry

September 20, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

New York Fashion Week has influenced the fashion industry and consumer tastes since 1943. It occurs twice a year in February and September, and it traditionally features styles that will be released in the following season. This has given designers and editors time to publish glossy photos and build hype for what was to come; however, as the most recent round of catwalks and glamour has come to a close, a new trend is emerging, and it is not even related to the style of the clothes themselves. What is changing the fashion industry is the idea of “see now, buy now.”

Burberry rattled the industry when it was the first to make this dramatic decision in February 2016. With the idea of “runway to retail” in mind, the products shown on the catwalk were available for purchase promptly after the show. The styles were labeled “immediate and season-less,” and the motivation for this decision was clear.

Fast fashion brands such as Zara and Forever 21 can whip out new styles from sketches to the shelves within a few weeks. With the help of the Internet, this means that the items can also quickly go out of fashion because of overexposure and instant popularity, especially if online influencers feature photos of themselves wearing similar items. The brands are notorious for mimicking the styles of high-end designers, so this means that by the time Vera Wang, Marchesa, and the like release their products months after their initial catwalks, they risk their styles looking dated and having less demand than they would have six months prior.

This comes at a time when people are constantly looking for immediate gratification, so it makes complete sense that designers are having to change their business models to fit what consumers want. Since February, several brands such as Tom Ford, Michael Kors, and Proenza Schouler have adapted in order to keep up with this changing industry. This requires the brands to adjust their production and supply chain, which is difficult for companies that have been running the same timeline for decades. High fashion used to be about scarcity and standing out, but nowadays, people are able to get their hands on just about any style they so desire.

In the modern era, shopping has become an addictive pastime, and according to NYU marketing professor Tom Meyvis, it elicits the most joy when consumers are able to browse, see something they want, and have it immediately. Just look at the increasingly rapid delivery times of online retailers. Fast fashion has perfectly filled this gap by shortening the delivery time, and if high-end brands want to keep up, they have no choice but to change. This cat-and-mouse cycle might actually be benefitting consumers in the end because data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that even though there has been an overall increase in the price of retail goods, there has been a decrease in the price of clothing. Increased competition usually benefits the consumer, and the vast power of media and the Internet only adds ammunition.

Dating: An Economic Indicator

September 1, 2016 by shulin Leave a Comment

Economists use certain indicators to measure the health of our economy. Some classic examples include gross domestic product, employment rate, and housing starts; however, something as emotional and personal as dating can also provide some surprisingly telling information about our economy.

People date because they are looking for their illusory “one.” This could be someone they will lean on in any situation, including times of economic unrest. In fact, Match.com saw a spike in their service usage during the last quarter of 2008, which was right in the midst of the Great Recession.

This could be explained by a number of factors, especially in the world of online dating. During recessions, people tend to have more time on their hands because they are working less, so they are more willing to invest time in finding love. Online dating also provides a way for people to filter out any possible duds before having to put in the effort of going out to meet them for a possibly unpleasant date. Singles are also likely to crave the comfort and stability of a relationship especially during hard times, so a recession could likely motivate them to begin their search for a mate. Having someone to relate to can absolutely take the stress off.

There are also some practical reasons that people want to have a partner. For many people, dating is an easy way to get a free meal or find new and interesting activities to participate in. Dating gets people outside of the house, and it is a nice distraction from what is happening at home or at work. Later on in the relationship, the couple can begin to share the unsexy necessity of paying the bills. Sharing expenses in the household is much more cost efficient than having to pay for everything yourself.

The financial benefits of having a spouse, like qualifying for certain tax deductions or saving on health insurance, are also some great perks to getting hitched. This is all way down the line though. What is important is that in order to reap all these benefits, people must first begin by simply dating and finding someone who can serve as their partner in crime in life.

It may not seem like it, but a recession might actually be the perfect time to find a partner because it may be easier to sift through those who are just after your money rather than your heart. Dating can become more about the actual person instead of a game in which one tries to impress the other with the expensive material objects or fancy meals. This can take the pressure off planning extravagant dates so the couple can appreciate simple pleasures like taking a walk or having a picnic.

Most people have an inherent desire to find love, and as bizarre but also expected as it might seem, this want gets pushed to the forefront in times of hardship. If dating can increase overall happiness, then I absolutely say go for it!

MMM

Money Marks & Media - Spring 2014