For the past few decades, some of the brightest and best of young Chinese left the country to seek educational and entrepreneurial opportunities overseas. Often, they went to the most prestigious universities in United States, Europe and Canada. Then, they took top-tier jobs at multi-national companies and research institutes.

But now they’re coming home

Because there is more money in China. Growth rates are breathtaking. And new businesses find opportunities and capital more easily.

With its 8 percent annual growth rate, the Chinese economy has become the world’s second largest after the United States. After the financial crisis in 2008, while other major world economies were plagued by the dragging recession, China’s economy remained robust, hence spurring the tide of of some Chinese migrants returning.

The beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed soaring numbers of overseas Chinese migrating back home. According to statistics from the China’s Ministry of Education, in 2012 alone, more than 272,900 overseas students came back, up by almost 50 percent from the year prior.

Returning students have increased by an average of 36% per year over the past 5 years, pushing the total number of the five-year period to more than 800,000. That dwarfed the entirety of all returnees back to China for the 30-year period from 1978 to 2008.

The returning trend shows no sign of mitigating, as a poll conducted in this January by a research team from Nankai University shows. The polls indicated that less than 10% (the lowest number in the past decade) of the nearly 2,000 undergraduate students surveyed had plans to immigrate to other nations after they finish their study abroad.

Another survey conducted by the Chinese international education service provider EIC in 2013 echoed the similar shift. It said 22 percent of returned overseas Chinese students thought they would have better prospects finding a good job in their “home country”.

“China’s high-speed economic growth in past years has motivated overseas students to come back and to look for job opportunities,” Liu Yuan, general manager of EIC’s Shanghai branch told People’s Daily. “At the same time, it demonstrates the difficulty overseas Chinese students have in finding jobs in other countries.”

About half of the former overseas Chinese students polled cited the uncertain economic situation as the biggest obstacle to finding employment overseas.

The tremendous rise in returning students since 2008 coincides with the government rolling out a wide-ranging series of initiatives and incentives aimed at appealing to highly educated citizens. Those benefits include better opportunity for career development, favorable tax rates, housing, more research project opportunities, and government awards.

The growth in Chinese students pursuing studies in the US has been exponential during the past decade: China sent 60,000 students to the US in 2000, almost all graduate students sponsored by the government; in 2012, 194,000 Chinese students went to the US, with most of the growth from self-funded undergraduate students.

Overall, China started to lead all nations in sending students to US universities since 2008. Today, it sends five times more students (158,000 last year) to US institutions than the second-largest source India, according to US State Department statistics. The Chinese government thus showed more eagerness to lure those talents back to help spur its economy.

In 2010, the issue of “trade deficit of talent” was taken over by the Coordination Group on Specialists of the Communist Party of China. The goal of this group is to coordinate the myriad efforts in place to bring back talent to China.

For more than two decades now, China has had programs to encourage talent to move back to the country. Between 1990 and 2010, the Ministry of Education spent close to $98 million in seed funding for about 20,000 returnees.

A program by the Chinese Academy of Science, launched in 1994, offers as much as $328,500 for research to returnees. In almost 20 years, almost 1,600 professionals have taken advantage of the plan.

In 2008, China launched the Thousand Talents plan, through which the government tries to convince overseas Chinese to return. The plan offers top scientists and entrepreneurs as much as $150,000 in cash, office and laboratory space, housing allowances and school entry for children. The aim of the program was to attract 2,000 academics and entrepreneurs during the course of a decade. More than 3,300 came back.

Another program, the Medium- and Long-Term Talent Development Plan (2010-2020) aims to attract another 2,000 specialists in IT, biotechnology, aerospace, environmental protection, agricultural technology and transportation.

Wei Wang, who is now working at Hubei Institute for Food and Drug Control, took part in the Thousand Talents plan back in 2008 immediately after graduating from Michigan State University.

“It was indeed a hard time for me to choose back then. I originally planned to work in a US medicine company for at least a couple of years after graduation. But the US economy at that time was not in a good shape. And by comparison the domestic talent policy in my home country was just way too appealing. Thus I changed my mind,” said Wang.

But it is hard to tell how effective these programs truly are at bringing back top talent. There have been criticisms of poor management, particularly in city level programs. At times, “returnees” who have taken advantage of programs were already back in China but were enrolled to shore up the numbers. At other times, the people offered spots in these programs did not necessarily fit the bill.

Quality can be an issue. The lower end of the talent spectrum tends to swell the ranks of the returnees. Weak students, often supported by their parents after they return to China, return in droves. The best and the brightest are often hired in the US and Europe; luring these candidates back is expensive.

In a 2008 survey, Duke University in the US found that half of 637 returnees polled had five years or less of experience in the US. They were hardly top executives.

As more and more overseas students are returning back to China, there is a major difference from previous generations who have made the same choice to go back. The previous trend was to come back to China to work at universities or research institutes. Nowadays, returnees are joining businesses or starting up their own enterprises off the ground. They might have been working abroad for several years and have seen the limitations of the foreign markets; they feel they can apply their own talent and experience to tap the greatest potential of the vast Chinese market.

Wang Mengqiu, 37, was born in Sichuan province and went to the US a decade ago to obtain a master’s degree in computer’s science at UCLA.

Until 2012, she worked at a Silicon Valley startup producing network routers. Once the bubble burst, she and her husband — a fellow “sea turtle” who used to work at IBM — picked up and flew back to China where they consider opportunities are more promising.

Now, Wang is now the Vice-President of Engineering at Baidu, Chinese version of Google, while her husband is embarking on a startup to create a Chinese equivalent of Pinterest.

“I don’t think I would get the same opportunities in US, frankly,” Wang told Global Post. “Just last month, I went back to Silicon Valley to visit some friends. What I found out is they are doing the same things they were doing ten years ago. Nothing has changed. They are smart people, but they cannot get enough opportunities in the US.”

 

Reference:

How China’s “Sea Turtles” Will Crush US Economy.

More Chinese Students Return to Find Work After Studying Abroad.

China’s Return Migration And Its Impact On Home Development.

Why Are Overseas Chinese Students Not Returning To China.

Plight Of The Sea Turtles.

More Chinese Students Want A US Education, But Fewer Stay For A Job.

Chinese Immigration And The Chinese In United States.

Number Of Returning Chinese Students Up 38%.

Returning To Mexico: Why Mexican Immigrants Are Leaving The US.

Chinese Students Studying Abroad Bringing Change To China…But What Kind?

History Of Chinese Immigration To US.

Why The Chinese Are Flocking To US Colleges?

More Students Back From Abroad.

3000 RMB? Returning Overseas Chinese Students Coming Back to Paltry Salaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is Saturday night. You and your friends are planning to go downtown for a few drinks. Instead of calling a cab, someone takes out her iPhone and books a ride with Patrick. He has a friendly smile, a five-star rating, and a white Toyota—with a pink mustache.

Named as one of TIME’s 10 ideas that will change the world in 2011, the concept of collaborative consumption has proved it is a force to be reckoned with. Service start-ups such as Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb are challenging the traditional models of consumption, giving regular guys like Patrick an opportunity to participate in the supply chain. Before, hopping into a stranger’s car may have been seen as reckless and irresponsible, but Rachel Botsman, co-author of “What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption,” writes about how technology is enabling trust between strangers. She says collaborative consumption is a “powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume.”

Technology has often times disrupted the economic landscape. Take Lyft as an example. It is a ride-sharing app that markets itself as “a friend with a car.” The economic transaction is more than just an exchange of service; it’s an experience. Lyft is redefining what a ride service is, while normalizing casual interaction during commodity exchange.

Here is how it works. At any point in time, you can open up the app and hail a friendly Lyft driver around the area.

You enter the car, give the driver a fist-pump, and he or she entertains you with a friendly conversation as you are dropped off at your location. The transaction is processed by Lyft so you avoid the awkward paying and tipping process. Using Lyft is vastly different from using a taxi service. Lyft has become popular especially with the tech-savvy and thrifty Millennial generation. The company raised $60 million in its third round funding last May with venture firm Andreessen Horowitz and the company has grown to be available in 22 cities.

According to TechCrunch, Lyft is currently growing at a faster pace than its main competitor, Uber, with a 6% growth rate disclosed by its co-founder, John Zimmer (TechCrunch). Some point out the numbers can be misleading since Lyft currently has a smaller revenue base than Uber. However, when Uber raised $307 million in Series C funding last June, Lyft caught up to having one-third of the weekly ride volume Uber had across all its products. If we dive further into the success of Lyft, we can find there are multiple economic forces at play.

“There’s an app for that” is a now common response to everyday problems. Technology of apps and proliferation of mobile phones have allowed companies like Lyft to reduce transaction costs. People are able to conduct business with private individuals rather than a chain. This process of disruption has reorganized the protocol of commodity exchange. In Lyft’s case, the app redefined the economic structure by asking for “donations” rather than charging “fares” for payment. Since Lyft does not employ a specialized workforce, it came up with a new form of transaction in order to enter the market. The legality of this is as fuzzy as Lyft’s iconic pink mustache, evidenced by the app’s ban in certain cities like Seattle. Major cities like Los Angeles requires Lyft to charge a set fee to continue its service, but the majority of Lyft locations still operate on “donations.”

Perhaps ironically, through innovation, our generation is reverting back to a peer-to-peer localized model. “Collaborative consumption” is often interchanged with “shared economy.” The act of sharing is deeply ingrained in the Millennial culture. Millennials love to share articles, tweets, pictures, location, etc. It seems natural that this behavior trickled down to more tangible things like clothes, cars, and even homes. Economic sluggishness over the last few years has also contributed to this phenomenon, as more people are trying to find ways to make money off of their unused or under-utilized assets.

Think about it. You have a car and a driver’s license. You consider yourself to be a responsible driver, and you give rides to your friends all the time—why not start getting paid for it? Patrick bought into the idea, joining Lyft to make some money on the side.

“I needed a second job to help pay some bills and also to help save up for grad school. I do see myself doing this long term because I can make some extra cash and not have it interfere with my regular work schedule,” he says.

Lyft takes a 20% cut from every transaction. There are also “Prime Time Tips” that escalate rates during high-demand periods (i.e. 11pm on a Saturday night). These tips can go as high as 70%, but the entirety of the increase goes to the drivers. Due to the reduced transaction cost of using a casual workforce and conducting financial transactions online, Lyft fees are also generally cheaper than regular taxi services. Katherine, a college student from California, says she uses Lyft because it is more convenient and affordable.

“I use Lyft because it feels more personal and I feel like I can trust the drivers. Plus it’s convenient to find a car from an app on my phone – I never know which number to call for a taxi or what service is better than another. Plus it’s cheaper. A ride to downtown via taxi can be $14, while using Lyft, I can get a rate as cheap as $8.”

It seems like everyone wins—well, except for the taxi and limo service industry. Formally trained drivers who are screened in a testing and licensing system are now competing with normal civilians. In essence, the barriers to entry to the transportation industry has been compromised. However, this does not mean Lyft does not take safety seriously. In some aspects, Lyft’s screening process is harsher than some taxi companies, with higher age requirements, and stricter standards on criminal records. For instance, Lyft requires no reckless driving or DUI within the last seven years, when the City of Los Angeles only requires three years. In addition, Lyft links your Facebook for verification and provides insurance of up to $1m for the drivers. The car also has to be clean and presentable.

There have also been tensions between governments and the new model. In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission issued “cease and desist” letters to Lyft along with other similar services. Although the knee-jerk reaction may be the issue of safety, there are many factors contributing to the debate of this new business model. Taxi and limousine companies who once enjoyed monopolies are heavily lobbying against legalizing these services. In addition, many cities rely on the regulation fees these companies pay to operate, fees private ride sharing programs are not obliged to pay.

“To me it’s a really dumb debate,” Patrick says.

“The real concern for the state of California and other states that Lyft operates in is that they see private ride-sharing programs as entities that are taking money from them. They hide under the issue of safety, but their arguments are based off of taxi companies having to pay fees regulated by the state while private ride sharing programs do not. How does that equate to being concerned about passenger safety? It’s really ridiculous.”

The issue of safety is always brought up in these debates. However, it seems like Millennials have more faith in strangers. Katherine says, “the idea of communicating even with a stranger online isn’t quite as daunting anymore.”

“There’s a growing inherent trust between young people in this generation (twenty-somethings), so doing things like calling a cab or organizing a ride share through an app or online service doesn’t seem so out of ordinary, and most don’t think anyone is trying to scam them.”

Patrick says the age of his passengers range from 21-45, which is consistent with the wide belief ride-sharing is embraced mostly by the Millennial generation. Botsman asserts that we now live in a global village, and there is a new importance placed on reputation. In Lyft’s case, transactions are followed by a rating system, from these reviews drivers and users leave a trail. If you average less than 4.5 stars, you are in danger of being dropped. Our ability to collaborate is quantified into a form of “reputation capital,” and it is put in public display, ultimately determining our access to collaborative consumption.

Last September, the State of California became the first state to regulate ride-sharing, or what is now newly dubbed as “transportation network companies.” Depending on how these new rules perform, other cities may follow the California framework in the future.

It’s five o’clock on a Friday in Downtown Los Angeles circa 1995. Bankers and businessman check their watches, walk down to their cars, and drive off to their respective homes or apartments throughout Los Angeles. This was the picture of what downtown used to be, a ghost town with vacant offices and a bleak economic outlook for the neighborhood.

Thanks to the emergence of the Staples Center, downtown is no longer the ghost town it used to be. In the past 15 years the neighborhood of downtown Los Angeles has seen a dramatic rise in the number of businesses that have decided to open up shop . But what is driving this dramatic rise?

Many experts believe the growth was buoyed because of AEG’s Staples Center, which is true, but there are several other factors that were just as effective. For example, the creation of Metro Rail, which brought people from Pasadena into this neighborhood, furthering economic activity. Another factor was the completion of the Walt Disney Concert Hall in 2003. There were many roadblocks from 1987 to 2003, but the necessary funds were collected, and it has brought a world-class architecture project to downtown. So we see an amalgamation of investment through private, public, and philanthropic means along with a coincidence of good timing.

The reason why the Staples Center garners much of the praise for this revitalization is because this multi-purpose stadium hosts over 250 events and around 4 million visitors a year, an outstanding number of people to see the revitalized downtown neighborhood. Now, with the construction of LA Live, there are many pull factors like restaurants and bars that see visitors of the Staples Center come early for the event and stay once the event is over. Before the completion of the arena, downtown was best known for the juxtaposition of skid row and financial businesses. In the early 1990’s, banks located in downtown began to consolidate and merge their offices, thus creating empty office buildings and spaces throughout the neighborhood.

Los Angeles is a city that, despite the economic woes of its state, can be seen as a beacon of hope with a global interest that has seen investment from several Chinese firms as well as Korean Airlines. This sentiment has become increasingly more evident with the construction of the Wilshire Grand building that is owned by Korean Airlines. The Wilshire Grand building will become the eighth largest building in the United States, once completed. Generally speaking, the more skyscrapers and construction cranes a city has, the healthier their economy is. That is not always true, but in this case it demonstrates that Los Angeles, and the booming downtown, want to compete on a global scale. Sure, the rebuilding of the downtown neighborhood has been a slow process since the late 1990’s, however, according to Nate Berg, “many in the city are hopeful that the Wilshire Grand is part of a new wave of investment downtown that will help the city compete internationally” (Nate Berg, The Guardian). It seems as though Nate’s sentiments are justified in terms of the investments being brought to the neighborhood, when there are plans for chains like Whole Foods, retailers like Urban Outfitters, and several local restaurants who have decided to expand to the downtown area.

In order to put the rise of downtown in context of, towards the end of 2013, “Six parking lots in downtown Los Angeles recently sold for $82 million” according to Dawn Wotapka of the Wall Street Journal. A staggering amount of money for some parking lots that have plans to be turned into an apartment complex. This is just one deal of many that have transpired over the past 15 years, and the figures seem to keep rising.

However, the other side of this story is the issue with occupancy rates, and whether or not there are too few apartments or too many people. Wotapka reports, “With more people flocking downtown, the vacancy rate for apartments has fallen. In the third quarter, downtown Los Angeles had a vacancy rate of 3%, down from 3.3%” Along with the dropping vacancy rates in downtown, which means in increase in demand, the consequence is that the average price of rent jumped almost 4% in the final quarter of 2013.

To shed more light and data  on the rise of housing in downtown, Wotanka found, “There are about 14,000 apartment units in downtown Los Angeles. About 5,100 units are under construction, and more than 3,400 units were built between 2008 and 2013, according to Polaris Pacific, a real-estate sales, marketing and research firm. More than 3,000 additional rental units have been approved, with another 7,000 proposed. Meanwhile, there are only 17 condo units for sale and 68 under construction.”

Although there are some concerns that there has been such a vast amount of investment for housing downtown that we could see a drop in prices, the consensus among real-estate executives is that the demand will still stay fairly constant and strong. This prediction is justified by a recent report on the diminishing availability of apartment buildings and the relationship with rent prices. Since 2010, rent in the downtown neighborhood has increased by 18.2% and is still predicted to grow because of the strong demand.

There has been a rush of residents flocking downtown, but that does not mean that it was equipped with the necessary provisions of a typical neighborhood.Another major indicator of the downtown area boom, although it may seem trivial at first glance, is the addition of Whole Foods to the flourishing neighborhood. The development of a Whole Foods in downtown serves not only high-priced, fair trade organic groceries, but as a symbol of the seriousness of downtown as a vital area in Los Angeles. As David Pierson of the Los Angeles Times reports, is “a major development in the neighborhood’s gentrification efforts.” He is not the only one praising the development of the high end grocery store. City Councilman Jose Huizar recently stated, “Downtown Los Angeles is like a city within the city that needs a diverse range of services – including grocery stores,” Huizar said in a statement.  “Bringing Whole Foods Market to downtown is long-awaited news that represents a major coup.”

But Whole Foods is not the only successful chain that has chosen to explore the downtown area. The recently remodeled United Artists Building, now called the hip Ace Hotel, provides another example of what downtown has become. With locations in London, New York, and Panama, to name a few, the expansion to the downtown area exemplifies the “hip” and “young” vibe that the area now exudes.

Downtown has made tremendous strides and has overcome many obstacles to get the state that it is in today, and many real estate executives believe that the best has yet to come for this burgeoning neighborhood. With rising rents and diminishing vacancy rates, an interesting few years are expected to come in the housing market, with several apartment complexes to be completed. However, in retrospect, you have to look back to the addition of the Staples Center, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, the completion of LA Metro rail lines into downtown, and the subsequent development of L.A. Live as the genesis of this downtown explosion.

Thirty miles south of the city proper lies the heart of L.A.’s economy: the Port of Los Angeles. In the words of the Port’s economist Michael Keenan, “logistics is the Silicon Valley of Los Angeles,” and the well-oiled machine of the San Pedro harbor proves that statement. While our tour out on the water was relatively quiet, my drive there and back provided me a firsthand look at the worker ants of this Los Angeles behemoth: the port truck drivers. Looking into their role specifically, I came across a recent article in the Los Angeles Times focused on a recent battle the truck drivers have faced as Los Angeles and other ports across the nation classify the truckers not as higher-paid employees, but independent contractors. Freed of the responsibility of guaranteeing higher wages and working conditions, ports are reaping the benefits while the truckers suffer.

Out of a total 75,000 truckers who serve the ports of the United States, 15,000 of those work in the Los Angeles/Long Beach port area. They handle more than a “trillion dollars of cargo annually.” A common trucker works a six-day week, up to 14 hours a day, and takes home about $200. According to the report in the Los Angeles Time, “the median earnings of an independent contractor is…$29,000 a year, compared with $35,000 for a trucking company employee.” Even though trucking companies control their business, where and when they work, and what their fees are, most drivers are still considered independent contractors in company eyes, and have to pay for gas and repairs on the company-owned trucks, reducing their earnings further.

Throughout this, trucking companies desperately work to find more drivers, claiming a shortage of workers. Here’s a graph from the American Trucking Associations:

However, drivers respond, if such a shortage actually exists, why are their real wages still kept so low? Wages for the trucking industry grew 2% less than the entire private work force. Either the trucking companies are drastically overstating their need for drivers as an excuse to avoid more risk in this post-recession world, or the number of truckers is truly declining due to other reasons. Amongst those reasons may be the large number of truckers approaching retirement age and others, like the frustrated parties in Los Angeles, leaving the field for greener and less uncertain pastures.

Trucking, once “one of the backbones of the blue-collar middle class,” according to Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has turned into “sweatshops on wheels.” So far in L.A., “400 complaints” have been filed to the state agency, and a few have already gained rulings confirming their misclassification as independent contractors. Due to these early successes, the number of potential lawsuits may grow, and the thriving port of L.A. is going to have a problem on their hands.

Other source:

http://www.overdriveonline.com/driver-shortage-countdown-to-a-capacity-crunch-and-a-boost-in-rates/

“How hard is it to really make it into the YouTube business?” I thought to myself.

Well, it seems pretty simple and many would agree that it indeed seems actually quite simple. There are mommy bloggers, food bloggers, comedian bloggers, make-up bloggers, pranksters, pick up artist videos, political videos, social commentary videos and the list goes on and on. These users make an income off YouTube by explicitly allowing YouTube to place advertisements in their videos and in exchange the user receives a 55/45 cut from ad revenues. With reaching over 1 million users being “YouTube Partners,” users that are actually monetizing, there has been a significant rise in partnerships since 2008 when it only had 30,000 and the number of videos watched has increased from 3 billion in 2011 to 6 billion in 2013

“So with the demand rapidly increasing

, how is the YouTube Economy looking?”

Well you can look to Amazon and see that YouTube Strategies 2014 has become the #1 Book at Amazon for Marketing, and that’s not even the punch line. Between 2012 and 2014 the number of YouTube partners increased from 30,000 to 1,000,000. It seems then, that with the increasing number of partnerships and interest that there is more people trying to get a piece of YouTube’s pie. The money.

But the pie can only feed so much. Especially cause the pie won’t be able to feed all the new kids coming down the block.

While the number of users entering into partnership are increasing (through a click of a button), the supply of ad revenue, mama’s apple green pie, has yet to keep up.

“Advertisers paid an estimated $4 billion for YouTube ads in 2012, up 60 percent from 2011,” according to RBC Capital Markets stock analyst Mark Mahaney. However, according to an article by Todd Juenger who takes a critical look on the future of online video advertising, he suspects that an increase in advertising revenue will begin to halt. This turns out to be true, considering that YouTube only brought in 5.5 billion this year according to a Forbes article. That is 25% decrease from the previous year’s growth

Given, the users in 2012 should be very grateful since there were almost seven times fewer partners in 2012 compared to today. Unbeknown, the lucrative and prosperous year of 2012 would also mark the eventual and continual downfall of future earnings ahead.

In the early year of 2012, YouTube decided to restructure their revenue-sharing program to allow more users to enter into a partnership by making the process of entering into a partnership much easier. Now with just a click of a button users are able to immediately become paid partners of YouTube while before that users had to apply and go through a lengthy process to get their permission.

What resulted was similar to your mother allowing all your friends and friends of friends and neighbors and those baked high schoolers from Dazed and Confused to hop over into your yard to have a piece of her seemingly insufficient pie.

Though there is an increase in partnerships there is an increasing plateau of ad revenue — which hurts current partners as they now deal with increasingly more competitors for a limited amount of money.

Basically the number of visitors are rising daily and so are the number of visitors that choose to become partners. Which is a really good thing for YouTube. But the only variable that poses a problem in this YouTube economical equation is they haven’t been able to increase the annual amount of ad revenue. But with YouTube’s increasing number of visitors and the progression of online video viewing the advertisers realize that it’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

So to answer the question: The pie of money got official in 2012, but ever since it hasn’t gotten any bigger. But more kids are coming for a slice and they are all aware of what that means. Smaller slices –even for the bigger kids usually are the ones to get bigger portions.

So what’s it looking like for the future?

Since the new program, YouTube has failed to keep up in finding more advertising sponsors to match its increasing number of partners –causing the difference in ratio between number of users and amount of ad revenue to become higher and higher. Therefore, the rate of how much partners get per view is continually dropping as other partners are competing for their views.

In a research analysis by TubeMogul it explains that the rates for the most lucrative pre-roll video ads have dropped from an average of $9.35 per 1,000 views in June of 2012 to $6.33 in April of 2013.

Some might say that is pretty bad, particularly the older ones who used to be making $25 per 1 thousand views in 2010 according to an article by Online Video Marketing Site, Will Video for Food. Unfortunately, veterans will continue to struggle in maintaining their income, because this opens doors for entering newcomers as they give advertisers the ability to look into a more diverse pool of sponsorships. With a more diverse and mediated population, the demand for the most popular videos will decrease as advertisers look to sponsor cheaper partners.

In 2012 a significant portion of ad-revenue sponsorships mainly went to the partners who were the most popularly viewed. However since then, 1/3 of the ad sponsorships left the most popular channels and headed towards the diversified partners (lower tier in popularity but newer and trendy) according to the research firm TubeMogul.

.

One reason is because with the increasing number of monetizing users there is less of a need to put advertisements in the popular videos. Instead an advertiser can choose to distribute its advertisements to cheaper and trendier channels. Meaning, this allows sponsors to meet their criteria by putting their advertisements in several videos rather than one for cheaper.

While some advertisers and partners are able to see this as a moment of opportunity, most advertisers believe that a majority of the content on YouTube lacks production quality and have therefore lost the incentive to invest further.

The problem lies in the growing number of partnerships.

While the growth of partnerships continues, there is also growing number of non-quality videos that are still able to get money for its views. Therefore, there this creates a higher demand for quality videos which in turn raises the rates for advertisers who want to sponsor those videos.

Some advertisers do not like the idea of having to settle for “non-quality” sponsorships and therefore have chosen to abandon their investment all together.

Here’s what it looks like for a veteran and a newbie according to an article by the site BusinessWeek.com.

Veterans of the YouTube business, brothers Vijay and Antonius Nazareth, a popular channel, saw a 50% decline in their earnings in early 2013. They were retaining the same number of views but their income has continually dropped.

Another popular channel by Hannah Hart, a newer experienced partner, who runs the very successful My Drunk Kitchen, said that her earnings began to decline since mid-2012 –which is right when the new revenue program launched.

So, what veterans and newcomers are doing in response is resorting to a new strategies proposed by “content networks.”

Content networks are companies that take a cut of their client’s advertising revenue in exchange for covering the costs of production, looking for direct sponsors and securing higher ad rates. Content networks have become a very popular way for up-and-coming users and is generally directed towards newcomers although many veterans have resorted to them in response to the changing economy. Big content networks that are able to achieve over 2 billion views a month with up to 5,000 contracted partners can combat against the dropping ad rates. On top of that, content networks have the ability to negotiate a price directly with ad sponsors themselves, which helps more with easing the drop in monetization rates.

Machinima for example achieved over 2.2 billion views in March of 2013 with its 6,500 partnerships and has been able to maintain their rates by directly negotiating with sponsors. Since they specialize in videos for male gamers between the ages of 18-34, whom of which are consistently the top 2 largest audience, Machinima has been able to partially combat against the dropping ad rates for certain users.

A very important and favored alternative to solving this issue is: capping the entry of new partnerships by (re) re-structuring the revenue sharing program, whether it’s by returning the program to its former procedure of application processing or by halting partnerships completely. But this would be very difficult to do. Particularly, because it would be taking a step back from what YouTube had set out to do in the first place –which is to make more money. Regardless of the ad rates for partners, the increased number of ad-revenue increased YouTube’s profits and will therefore continue to allow users to enter partnerships.

Don’t worry the future of YouTube will stay bright as long as it is continues its track in becoming the primary media outlet of the world. But until then, if you are thinking about making a career in YouTube, think twice (I personally still want to). But I think it’s important to keep in mind a common saying by one of YouTube’s most successful partners, Jason Calacnis who explains of YouTube,

“It’s a good place to get started, but not a good place to run a business. Why would you ever give your partner 100% of your ownership?”

 

For the past decades, some of the brightest and best of young Chinese left the country to seek educational and entrepreneurial opportunities overseas. Often, they went to the most privileged universities in United States, Europe and Canada. Then, they took top-tier jobs at multi-national companies and research institutes.

But now they’re coming home

Because there is more money in China. Growth rates are breathtaking. And new businesses find opportunities and capital more easily.

With its 8 percent annual growth rate, the Chinese economy has become the world’s second largest after the United States. After the financial crisis in 2008, while other major world economies were plagued by the dragging recession, China’s economy remained robust, hence spurring the tide of of some Chinese migrants returning.

The beginning of the twenty-first century witnessed soaring numbers of overseas Chinese migrating back home. According to statistics from the China’s Ministry of Education, from 2009 to 2011, 429,300 students who had studied abroad returned to their home country. In 2012 alone, more than 272,900 overseas students came back, up by 46.57 percent from the year prior.

Returning students have increased by an average of 36% per year over the past 5 years, pushing the total to more than 800,000. That dwarfed the entirety of all returnees back to China for the 30-year period from 1978 to 2008.

The returning trend shows no sign of mitigating, as a poll conducted in this January by a research team from Nankai University shows. The polls indicated that less than 10% of the nearly 2,000 undergraduate students surveyed had plans to immigrate to other nations after they finish their study abroad.

As the number of Chinese students at US universities surged to 158,000 last year, the number of “sea turtles” (or haigui, the Mandarin term for overseas-educated Chinese who come home from abroad) has also surged in what is a reverse-brain-drain trend.

As America has drastically axed the number of working visas available to foreigners — from 195,000 a decade ago to roughly 65,000 now — more educated Chinese have left the US, taking their skills with them. Data from US-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, more than 80 percent of Chinese who returned said that there were more opportunities at home than in the US.

As more and more overseas students are returning back to China, one big difference from previous generations who have made the same choice: the previous trend was to come back to China to work at universities or research institutes; nowadays, returnees are joining businesses or starting up their own enterprises off the ground. They might have been working abroad for several years and have seen the limitations of the foreign markets; they feel they can apply their own talent and experience to tap the greatest potential of the vast Chinese market.

Wang Mengqiu, 37, who was born in Sichuan province and went to the US a decade ago to obtain a master’s degree in computer’s science at UCLA.

Until 2012, she worked at a Silicon Valley startup producing network routers. Once the bubble burst, she and her husband — a fellow “sea turtle” who used to work at IBM — picked up and flew back to China where they consider opportunities are more promising.

Now, Wang is now the Vice-President of Engineering at Baidu, Chinese version of Google, while her husband is embarking on a startup to create a Chinese equivalent of Pinterest.

“I don’t think I would get the same opportunities in US, frankly,” Wang told Global Post. “Just last month, I went back to Silicon Valley to visit some friends. What I found out is they are doing the same things they were doing ten years ago. Nothing has changed. They are smart people, but they cannot get enough opportunities in the US.”

The tremendous rise in returning students since 2008 coincides with the government rolling out a wide-ranging series of initiatives and incentives aimed at appealing to highly educated citizens. Those benefits include better opportunity for career development, favorable tax rates, housing, more research project opportunities, and government awards.

One initiative, the Talent Development Plan (2010-20) launched June 2010, offers favourable policies on tax, housing and children and spouse resettlement for high-end talents willing to return to work in China.

China has also established more than 160 industrial parks encompassing more than 8,000 businesses to provide approximately more than 20,000 jobs for returnees.

The central government programmes for attracting overseas talents also include the 2008 Thousand Talents Programme; 2010 Thousand Young Talents Programme; 2011 Thousand Foreign Experts Programme; 2011 Special Talent Zone and the 2012 Ten Thousand Talent Plan. In line with the central government’s talent attracting strategy, by August 2012, 35 industries in 31 provinces and municipalities in China initiated a total of 2,778 local talent plans, such as the Beijing Haiju Programme, Jiangsu Seagull Programme and the Guangdong Pearl River Talent Plan. Under these programmes, more than 20,000 high-level overseas talents have been recruited.

However, the growth in Chinese students pursuing studies in the US has been exponential during the past decade: China sent 60,000 students to the US in 2000, almost all graduate students sponsored by the government; in 2012, 194,000 Chinese students went to the US, with most of the growth stem from increase of self-funded undergraduate students.

Overall, China started to lead all nations in sending students to US universities since 2008. Today, it sends five times more students to US institutions than the second-largest source, according to US State Department statistics.

Amid the upward trend in the number of Chinese returning, it does not ring true for the highly talented students who have obtained doctorate degrees, who are performing research or who have high-level work skills. According to a report released by the Central Chinese Human Resources Work Coordination, China is losing more highly talented people than any other country, and about 87% of those not returning are from science and engineering backgrounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam Nguyen wakes up everyday at around 8 AM to drive to work at his movie rental shop, “Video Town,” located in the city Hawthorne, to open up at exactly 10 AM. Throughout the rest of the day, he is met with a majority of long-time customers–who have been going for years–that are either returning a movie or asking him for help on what the best new release is to rent.

“Is this movie good, Sam?” one 5-year-old boy asks, holding up a DVD.

“It’s horrible,” replies Sam, with a little laugh.

Sam has been fortunate enough to be able to open his shop for more than 15 years, welcoming all those that want to rent movies from his establishment.

Sam, of course, is the exception.

With the sudden business transaction between Time Warner Cable and Comcast that was followed by Netflix paying Comcast for better streaming access, it is safe to assume that a majority of viewership is shifting towards the lovely world of the internet.

And while most of this discussion revolves around the relationship between television shows and broadcasting channels, the discussion should start to include movies and the financial stake when it comes to certain businesses for that particular industry.

The movie industry has always been fortunate to leave an economic “car accident” scene virtually without a scratch. Almost all of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)’s theatrical market annual reports show consistent progress, proving that no matter what the cost, consumers will still line up at midnight to see the latest blockbuster film.

However, once those movies have left the theatres and begin their way to the land of renting and purchasing movies from specific local businesses, not as many people are racing to get there at midnight.

What caused this very gradual shift?

Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, US citizens would rush to stores in order to access their favorite movies without having to depend on television broadcast schedules telling them when they were going to watch it. In the 90’s, as Blockbuster rose up, making $785 million in profits on $2.4 billion in revenues: a profit margin of over 30 percent.  However, what is important about Blockbuster’s success was all the profit they made from overdue and late fees from customers who would forget to turn it their rentals as scheduled and the fact that people had no other method of viewing movies, aside from actually buying the movie.

But things have changed.

These “brick and mortar” shops are facing large competition from technological alternatives. Instead of going to a local rental store such as the once-upon-a-time giant Blockbuster, one can now quickly go to the grocery store and pay for their bread and then quickly rent out a movie from a Redbox machine all before leaving the store.

Or if that is too much of a burden on people, the existence of Netflix and Amazon provide even more convenience by allowing consumers to access whichever movie they want from the comfort of their home. Netflix started their business model by showing commercials that focused on the fact that DVDs could be mailed to one’s house and one could mail it right back in the same envelope–and with no late fees.

Amazon also provides the same alternative to consumers, allowing them to both rent and buy movies from their website. Blockbuster attempted to compete with these emerging enterprises by creating its own website, but by 2007, it was tanking and going on the verge of bankruptcy (which it declared in 2010).

Even to those that are still seeking a physical space to purchase their product, the opposite is expected. Much like the way that Redbox is offered at grocery stores or outside convenience stores, the interior of the Redbox itself provides lots of options. One has the choice of DVDs, Blu-Ray discs and even video games when searching through the “Box”.

This abundance of product is why locations like Target or Best Buy are able to have such success. Joanna Cantu, manager at a Best Buy in Lawndale, CA, believes that Best Buy is the best of both worlds.

“Here, one can go into the DVD or Blu-Ray section and see something they like, want to buy it, and then decide they also need a laptop to watch it,” she said.

Although Best Buy gets a majority of its profit from its laptops, tablets and large high definition televisions, Cantu says the store still recognizes that watching movies will never go out of style.

“Movies are extended shows in a sense–they are a form of escape and the way that people like going to bookstores because they still get excited purchasing a book or even just being inside of a bookstore, I believe people have the same feeling when they buy a movie they really wanted,” she said.

Still, there is no denying that movie rental shops are now talked about once in a blue moon. There are overwhelming different forms of getting a movie once it has stopped being shown in the movie theatres.

What is even more threatening is the emergence of taking out this fine line between movie theatres, movies at home, and access of the internet. Slowly, it is becoming all intertwined into one big thing.

Televisions are now being turned into Smart TVs, where you can access your cable channels and switch onto Netflix with the click of a button.

But if that is not enough for consumers, particularly to the younger demographic, Microsoft’s newly released Xbox One now has an update coming up later in March that will allow players to watch video, play games and chat with friends all on one screen. Video includes movies which players can purchase and save in their Xbox One hard drive to watch whenever they want.

There has not been any speculation about Comcast going into the video game console industry, but considering the way that this lure into the internet spectrum is flowing, one can only assume that Comcast is patiently waiting for the appropriate opportunity to do this.

And yet, as companies and technology are racing to the top of the cultural universe, it is the simple and once rental shops that are being left at the bottom without a ladder.

However, for successful people like Sam Nguyen who have managed to stay alive, the advice provided by them to those that believe all hope is lost is the simple realization that never goes away: the gift of family.

“What people are looking for is an experience with entertainment. And in order to appreciate an experience, it has to be shared with someone,” he said. “If you are able to provide that aspect of family to people, and you can do it from a shop that is not even suppose to exist anymore, you have done a good job.”

It is Saturday night. You and your friends are planning to go downtown for a few drinks. Instead of calling a cab, someone takes out her Iphone and books a ride with Patrick. He has a friendly smile, a five-star rating, and a white Toyota—with a pink mustache.

Lyft is a ride-sharing app that markets itself as “a friend with a car.” The economic transaction is more than just an exchange of service; it’s an experience. The app is free and syncs to your smart-phone. At any point in time, you can open up the app and hail a friendly Lyft driver around the area.

You enter the car, give the driver a fist-pump, and he or she entertains you with a friendly conversation as you are dropped off at your location. The transaction is processed by Lyft so you avoid the awkward paying and tipping process. Lyft raised $60 million in its third round funding last May with venture firm Andreessen Horowitz and company has grown to be available in 22 cities.

According to TechCrunch, Lyft is currently growing at a faster pace than its main competitor, Uber, with a 6% growth rate disclosed my its co-founder, John Zimmer (TechCrunch). Lyft has especially been popular especially with the tech-savvy and thrifty Millennial generation. Katherine, a college student from California, says it has to do with convenience and saving money.

“I use Lyft because it feels more personal and I feel like I can trust the drivers more. Plus it’s convenient to find a car from an app on my phone – I never know which number to call for a taxi or what service is better than another. Plus it’s cheaper. A ride to downtown via taxi can be $14, while using Lyft, I can get a rate as cheap as $8.”

If we dive further into the success of Lyft, we can find there are multiple economic forces at play. The first is the economic recession. In tough times, people are gathering part-time jobs to make ends meet. For instance, Patrick started Lyft to make more money on the side.

“I needed a second job to help pay some bills and also to help save up for grad school. I do see myself doing this long term because I can make some extra cash and not have it interfere with my regular work schedule.”

In every transaction, Lyft gets 20% of the cut. There are also “Prime Time Tips,” that escalates rates during high-demand periods (i.e. 11pm on a Saturday night). These tips can go as high as 70%, but the entirety of the increase goes to the drivers. Lyft gets to bypass the system by asking for “donations” rather than charging “fares.” The legality of this is as fuzzy as Lyft’s iconic pink mustache, evidenced by the app’s ban in certain cities like Seattle. However, this does not mean Lyft does not take safety seriously. In some aspects, Lyft’s screening process is harsher than some taxi companies, with higher standards on criminal records, and linking your Facebook for safety and providing insurance of up to $1m for the drivers. The car also has to be clean and presentable.

Another economic factor is proliferation of mobile technology. “There’s an app for that” is a common slogan in response to every day problems. Technology of apps and mobile phones have allowed companies like Lyft to reduce transaction costs. People are able to conduct business with private individuals rather than a chain. Perhaps ironically, through innovation, our generation is reverting back to a peer to peer localized model. People have referred to this phenomenon as the sharing economy, or collaborative consumption.

Rachel Botsman, the co-author of What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, talks about how technology is enabling trust between strangers, and this concept of collaborative consumption is a “powerful cultural and economic force reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume.” Botsman writes collaborative consumption is a class of economic arrangements in which participants share access to products or services, rather than having individual ownership.

Named as one of TIME’s 10 ideas that will change the world in 2011, the concept of collaborative consumption has proved it is a force to be reckoned with. Botsman co-wrote the book in 2010, and since then, the concept has taken the app world by storm, with giants like Airbnb, Uber and Lyft rounding billions from venture capitalists. However, this new concept is disrupting the economic system. In Lyft’s case, the service is a huge threat to the taxi and limo service industry. Formally trained drivers who are screened in a testing and licensing system are now competing with normal civilians. In essence, the barriers to entry to the transportation industry has been compromised.

There has also been tensions between governments and the new model. In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission issued “cease and desist” letters to Lyft along with other similar services. Although the knee-jerk reaction may be the issue of safety, there are many factors contributing to the debate of this new business model. Taxi and limousine companies who once enjoyed monopolies are heavily lobbying against legalizing these services. In addition, many cities rely on the regulation fees these companies pay to operate, fees private ride sharing programs are not obliged to pay.

“To me it’s a really dumb debate,” Patrick says.

“The real concern for the state of California and other states that Lyft operates in is that they see private ride sharing programs as entities that are taking money from them. They hide under the issue of safety, but their arguments are based off of taxi companies having to pay fees regulated by the state while private ride sharing programs do not. How does that equate to being concerned about passenger safety? It’s really ridiculous.”

The issue of safety is always brought up in these debates. However, it seems like Millennials have more faith in strangers. Katherine says “the idea of communicating even with a stranger online isn’t quite as daunting anymore.”

“There’s a growing inherent trust between young people in this generation (twenty-somethings), so doing things like calling a cab or organizing a ride share through an app or online service doesn’t seem so out of ordinary, and most don’t think anyone is trying to scam them.”

Patrick says the age of his passengers range from 21-45, which is consistent with the wide belief ride-sharing is embraced mostly by the Millennial generation. Botsman asserts that we now live in a global village, and there is a new importance of reputation. In Lyft’s case, transactions are followed by a rating system, from these reviews these drivers and users leave a trail. If you average less than 4.5 stars, you are in danger of being dropped. Our ability to collaborate is quantified into a form of “reputation capital,” and it is put in public display, and ultimately determining our access to collaborative consumption.

Last September, the State of California became the first state to regulate ride-sharing, or what is now newly dubbed as “transportation network companies.” Depending on how these new rules perform, other cities may follow the California framework in the future.

Economic indicators are crucial to helping determine the state of the economy. As we are unable to physically or literally see the economy per se, economic indicators allow us to not only confirm economic trends (lagging indicators), but they also enable to help us predict future patterns and cycles.

While economists mostly rely on economic indicators such as a nation’s gross domestic product, unemployment rate, or consumer price index, there are also more unusual and unconventional indicators which may illustrate an economy’s state. An economic indicator that I found particularly interesting was the Marine Advertisement Intensity Index. The concept is simple: The more intense in nature the advertisements for the Marines were, the weaker the job market – and subsequently, the economy.

The Marines – as well as any branch of the U.S. military – offers many benefits in order to make enlisting more desirable and appealing to potential new recruits. According to the Marines’ official website, a Marine can enjoy “full health coverage, access to on-base medical facilities, free on-base housing, monthly housing allowances, low-cost mortgage loans and educational funding.” Furthermore, Marine families are also offered additional amenities, including healthcare, day-care and counselling. During an economic recession, these benefits and the promise of job security can seem especially appealing to high-school graduates who may feel that a potentially high college loan is unjustified – especially if the prospects of a future job are uncertain. In contrast, during times of economic prosperity, more high-school graduates are likely to go to college – therefore lowering the number of new Marine recruits.

The intensity of Marine advertisements is then reflected in the amount of people who enlist. In 2005, the Marines’ advertisement “The Climb” sought to recruit new members by invoking feeling of patriotism, pride, and accomplishment. The advertisement depicts a lone young man climbing a cliff without any equipment. While he struggles, images of Marines in full dress uniform, helping young children, and working together under a waving American flag are superimposed on the cliff-face encourage him to climb on. At the end, the advertisement emphasizes teamwork and duty in order to convince young men to enlist. In 2005 the economy and the job market was booming – however at the same time, it was a tough year in terms of Marine recruitment. The advertisement sought to recruit all who were willing – evident in its highly emotive, patriotic advertisement.

In 2008, however, saw the Marine Corps not only meeting but exceeding recruitment goals for the next three years. Furthermore, 99% of the new recruits were high-school graduates – up from 95%. Subsequently, the 2009 Marines advertisement, “America’s Few,” depicted a very different lifestyle than the one shown in the 2004 advertisement. In “America’s Few,” three men are shown enduring the rigorous challenges of boot-camp training, including but not limited to, running through intense obstacle courses, undergoing intense physical training, and bracing brutal, unforgiving weather. This grittier, perhaps more realistic depiction of military life illustrates a change in mentality – with more people willing to sign up, the Marines have the luxury of choice and can afford to be pickier in who they recruit.

 

When looking at the data, there is a clear correlation between unemployment rates and the number of new recruit. In 2004, the U.S. unemployment rate was 5.5%. In 2009, however, this rate soared to 9.3%. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.) The number of new recruits in 2004 and 2009 fiscal year were 36,794 and 42,226 respectively. (Marine Corps. Times, U.S. Department of Defense)

The trend seems to have continued, with the Marine Corps accession rate dropping to 32,215 in 2013. (Department of Defense) At the same time, their numerical accession goals have dropped – perhaps in anticipation of a slowly recovering job market. Does that mean we can expect – assuming unemployment rates continue to drop – not only fewer recruits, but also recruits who are not as strong as the recruits of 2008 or 2009? It is interesting that in an unstable economy, more and more Americans are willing to endure not only arduous physical military training but also the possibility of warfare and violence in hopes of securing a better future – just a glimpse into the desperation that the Great Recession created.

I was a sophomore in high school when the 2008 financial crisis happened. As naïve teenagers, my friends and I were more concerned with the upcoming Homecoming Dance rather than the stock market crash.

My mother, Judy Kim, owns a small dress store in LA’s historic Java Market (so I guess you can say every girl in school was jealous of me). Fall is traditionally a hot season because of high school dances (i.e. Homecoming, Winter Formal), but profits suddenly declined after the crisis.

“After 2008, people just weren’t spending,” Judy says. Since beautiful dresses are a luxury, Judy’s small business has been effected largely by cyclical shifts in the economy.

“Most of our customers were blue collar folks. Even so, we had parents who came in every week for months to pay off a 500 dollar dress for their daughter’s Quinceañera. As the recession got worse, more and more customers would beg for a refund. Some people just stopped showing up and did not pick up their phones.”

Judy had to make changes in sales tactics in order to make up for the loss during the recession. First and most obvious, she cut prices. Instead of the normal 50% return, the store now had a mark-up of 30%. The store is now constantly having a sale, but customers are always haggling the price more than ever. Judy came up with the idea of selling all-inclusive packages to entice customers. For example, a Quinceañera set can include: customization of a dress, a headpiece, and a pair of gloves with the girl’s initials embroidered on it.

The store also reduced the amount of employees. One summer, Judy taught herself how to use a sewing machine, and started doing alternations on the dresses herself. She taught me how to use Excel so I could record sales and calculate the commission of each employee. During the past tough years, everyone in my family was expected to contribute.

One glaring factor that contributed to Judy’s decline in sales was that her specific target consumer demographic experienced the hardest hit during the recession: the Hispanic population. “In the Fashion District, Jewish people own many of the buildings, and Koreans work in wholesale. Many stores employ Hispanics, and majority of the shoppers in the area are also Hispanic.”As a first-generation Korean American, Judy is not completely fluent in English—in fact, she is more fluent in Spanish. Located in Downtown Los Angeles, Judy’s store caters to a high Hispanic consumer base, which explains why there are three main types of dresses at her store: wedding, prom, and Quinceañera.

The Hispanic population in Los Angeles is almost 5 million according to a 2012 report by the US Census Bureau. According to a 2010 congressional report released by the Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, Hispanics have been named as the group that has experienced the hardest hit during the recession. The report showed that the Hispanic unemployment rate was only slightly above the overall national unemployment rate in 2006, when my mother’s dress shop was enjoying considerable profits.

However, by 2009, the rate soared to 13.1%, around 3 percentage points higher than the national rate. The disproportionate impact on the Hispanic community is partly due to the housing bubble’s impact on the construction sector. Information from the report also suggest unauthorized immigrants may have experienced the most impact in employment.

The decrease of disposable income has caused customers to be incredibly price conscious. Judy’s biggest competition has been online retailers. Start-ups like “Rent the Runway” allow users to rent a dress for a much cheaper price. Since dresses are not exactly necessities, people who are looking to save money find renting a wedding or Quinceañera dress is an economically smarter alternative than buying one and never wearing it again. Many of the dress stores have closed down, but Judy does not plan on giving up anytime soon.

“In this business, it is all about standing out. We are constantly trying to find a way to offer our customers something they cannot find anywhere else, including the internet.”

One huge advantage Judy has had over the years was that her sister is a fashion designer. Another secret weapon of hers is that her brother also has a dress shop, not too far from her own. Having the support of her family has been her greatest asset. The Kim siblings actually had plans of starting a retail website. However, my mother still has one huge reservation.

“Social media scares me. One bad review can kill your whole business, and kids are mean these days!”