Economics and the Tudor Era...

I know you watch it, but I won't make you admit it. :-)  Now, stop thinking about Jonathan Rhys Meyers and all the luxe glam swag in the palace. Think about the servants and the commoners. It was a difficult life. Most only lived to be 35. The commoners worked hard for very little. Meats and the best vegetables were sold to the wealthier classes. Court life was not what everyone experienced. No electricity. Cobbled shoes. Women had a high risk of dying in childbirth. Women were still viewed as "property" and their fathers decided their marriages. Ok, now you are wondering where I am going with this. Me, too. (wink, wink).  Human life is an economic resource:  You are valuable as more than just a person.

Value of human life...as an economic resource

Think of all the battles and attacks launched by Henry VIII. What happened to his royal coffers? Someone had to pay for those battles. Battles often left the coffers empty. In fact, several kings took the throne to empty treasuries from the wars of the previous monarch. All the executions and burnings of heretics - who paid for those? Tax money. His Majesty's Royal Navy was the pride of England. Given the geography of England, water defense was just smart. Money and other resources were allocated to the Navy. During the religious stuggles and threat of attacks from the French, Spain and the Emperor, securing the defenses was a smart choice. Of course, building defenses and raising armies required resources. They needed ships, ammunition, guns, cannons, swords, and, of course, valiant knights to protect the good people of England. The soldiers had to be fed, sheltered and clothed. All of these things are economic resources. When a soldier was killed, who took that person's place? It's not like someone made a quick run to Macy's to pick up a new platoon. The people were a precious resource. Just like today. Our military puts the safety of our soliders into consideration for that very reason. While losing men in battle was the norm in the Tudor era,  armies today try to save lives, not only because we place a higher value on a human life but also because of the pure financial aspect of it. The military puts a lot of money into training our soliders. War and economics, who would have thought? But wait. There's more. (I LIVE for opportunities to say that. I hope you read it in the infomercial host voice.)

Life expectancy, disease and economics. That's not something I would have put together either. Remember the Pilgrims and the Mayflower? (Aside from those drab garments. I mean, who wears rough wool year-round in the Southeastern U.S.? )  The colonies presented a considerable economic advantage for the countries sponsoring the expeditions. Not only did it mean more land for the nations of Europe (who were fighting over territories seemingly every other week in Europe. Remember the battles for Callis with Henry VIII?), but it meant more goods to trade and, for some, a place to send prisoners to work the land.  Most of us only think of the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock and then having a big dinner party with the Native Americans.  

However, this isn't true at all. It wasn't a happy technicolor event. The people on those ships were economic resources. They were on the boat to build a colony and work the land. Without labor, no goods or food could be produced. No buildings built. No money for England (or Spain). When the people died from disease, starvation or cold, resources were lost. At the risk of sounding horrible - more than a human life was lost. Employees are an economic resource. Livestock is an economic resource.  

Globalization in the Tudor Era...

When the 13 colonies in the New World decided to break from England, why did England fight? Wealth. Why are there multiple Macy's? It is an opportunity for Macy's as a whole to earn more money. Why just have a store in New York City when you can have thousands of stores all over the world and earn money from shoppers in other cities as well?  See? England globalized before globalization was cool. Those Tudors, always the trendsetters.

Economics, Cholera and slummy Victorian London...

Let's go to the Victorian Era, and we are pampered ladies at court. Queen Victoria was also a trendsetter - wedding gowns came to be, childbirth was made more acceptable. She rocked. Anyway,  we have a favorite cobbler to make our shoes. We love the way they fit and the styles he creates. This cobbler thinks of us when he makes our shoes. So, he gets sick and dies. We immediately faint at the thought of no more of those wonderful shoes and are caught by this dashing young lord. (It has nothing to do with too-tight corsets, dehydration or malnourishment.) We later find out that he died from cholera.

London was just a little on the slummy side in Victorian times. Raw sewage everywhere. That's why we live at court - and even then our toilets drained into cesspools. If/when these were cleaned, they went into the water source (Hello, Thames River). This water came out of the pumps. People would drink this water and cook with it. Whole communities of people were just dying from cholera. People thought it came from smells and just dirty people. The general thought was that if you died from cholera, it was because you didn't bathe or you were around those who didn't bathe.

We can't imagine that our cobbler was dirty and poor. He seemed so wonderful and clean when we met him. Well, John Snow thinks like us. Enter Snow and his technology (using the term technology loosely).  Snow was a doctor - he entered the medical field at the ripe old age of 14. That is not a typo. Snow goes into the slums and performs some tracking and draws some maps. Long story short- one outbreak lead to a ton of deaths within 24 hours, all isolated to one area. All of those residents are getting their water from the same place. The Broad Street Pump. Snow insisted the handle be taken off the pump. Once this is done no one else gets sick. Snow eventually tracks the outbreak to a sick child whose dirty diaper water is dumped into a cesspool. That cesspool drained into the Broad Street Pump.  So all these people died from drinking poo water. Lesson here? Wash your hands and hug your sanitation worker.

Ok. Ok. There are two more lessons - humans are valuable from an economic standpoint as labor and their thought processes. It wasn't just our favorite shoe maker that died. London lost a significant portion of the labor force both in the current generation and the next generation. Child deaths have a long term impact as well. Technology is also an important economic resource. 

Are things any different now? Of course women are now people in their own right and can vote in the U.S. Some of us are even educated and allowed to write blogs. :-)  The life expectancy is higher. We have electricity and nuclear energy. We have been in space. We are becoming more and more of a global community.  How has this changed how our resources are used? The world hasn't gotten any larger in terms of of available land, water, air, soil, etc, but we have more people that depend on it. The way we use our resources has changed through the higher value placed on human life by most cultures and the advances in technology. We can now do more with the limited resources we have. Think of it as an on-line two-for-one shoe sale with free-shipping. :-) Think of it as storing your Christian Louboutin heels in the dust bag. A significant amount of your available resources went into those shoes and you want to take care of them.  

If you want to read (or listen) to more on John Snow: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/transcript/john-snows-ghost-map

Want to know more about daily life for the Tudors? This is a great site: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/tudors/dailylife.htm

Economics - why should I care? It's a total snoozefest.

Ok, so the snoozefest part I can't argue with.  Grab a skinny non-fat and stick with me.

There is a reason we should care - at least a little bit. That reason is that the behaviors of our culture, other cultures, businesses and organizations can affect how much we pay for those super cute boots. Really. It also affects how much our homes are worth, if that hot tub adds value to our home and our ability to get those tdf jobs to pay for our tdf boots. Oh - and our hair color.

Supply & demand...
Suppose everyone wanted to be the same adorable shade of blonde as you, but only ONE colorist in the whole country could get the right shade. How easy do you think it would be for someone to get an appointment with that colorist? If you're like me, you guard the name and number of your hairdresser with your life! Why? Because if everyone goes there, it will be more difficult for you to get an appointment, right? See? You've used an economic principle right there. Supply and demand.  If the supply is low - one colorist - and the demand is high - everyone wants your hair - then the price for that service will go up. The market (all those people wanting your hair color) will bear (pay) the higher price. This is great news for the colorist, because their resources (money) will increase. This is bad news for you - well, not you specifically because you already have the hair, but you know what I mean - because your ability to get an appointment for a touch-up will decrease.

There are also external factors that can cause differences in price. This high-demand colorist (oh yeah, he's THAT good), uses a specific brand of color. That brand of color just happens to be shipped in from just one location. Well, there's a tornado that hit that location and the delivery trucks can't get out. Yes. The guys in the cute brown shorts are stuck in their trucks with the hair color we need in the back. Short of being mobbed by women in desperate need of a root touch-up, what could happen here? The supply of color has just been dramatically decreased by something that no one could control and the demand has remained the same. The price will go up even more due to the scarcity of the commodity. (There is not enough hair color for everyone who wants it. )

Now, what if that hair color came from another country and that country decides to charge a higher tax on goods being exported (going out of the country to be sold or used in another country)?  That's right! The price will go up. That's another external force.

Ok, let's go for one more. You decide to color your lovely golden locks a stunning auburn color. (It brings out your eyes and you really just needed a change.)  Suddenly, no one wants to be blonde any longer. Everyone wants that exact shade of auburn that you're rocking. What is going to happen to the price of the blonde hair color and the rates that colorist is charging for the blonde do?  They will decrease. Demand has decreased, supply has remained the same. The market (all those wannabe yous) will no longer bear the higher price for the blonde because the wannabes don't wanna be blonde any more.

Now, if the colorist is just as skilled in the red transformation (which, of course is true, because that colorist did your hair and you don't let just anyone mess with your color), the colorist can still charge a higher price for the auburn color service.  This happens a lot. Think iPhones. The iPhone6 is now much less expensive than the iPhone8s, because consumers want the newest features.


Back to those tdf boots. (For the non-blondes: tdf means "to die for").  The boots for the newest season are priced at around $375 - some higher, some lower, depending on the style. The boots from last season are priced at 40% off. Why? Seriously? Are you going to wear last season's boots? Ok, so some people will (I admit that I am one of them) and scoop them up at the discounted price. (We will go back to this later when we discuss consumer behavior and allocation of resources.) This is how the supplier (and the stores that sell the boots) get rid of the boots that didn't sell (Shocking, I know. I mean, who wouldn't want the newest boots?) This allows the seller to still make some money on the boots, although it isn't as much. (Return on investment - we'll talk about that later, too). The demand for the new season boots is high.  We want the newest boots and are willing to pay a higher price to have them. The seller knows this from the study of - gasp - economics and prices the boots based on this.


Let's throw in another factor that can affect price. The colorist hires an apprentice. This person is working under direct supervision of the amazing colorist, but is not that amazing colorist. This is a substitution. A similar product, but not the same, and that apprentice is less expensive than the colorist. Will demand shift or will this increase demand overall for the salon? A less expensive option that is very similar to the awesome colorist could attract a new market - or a group of people that wouldn't pay the awesome colorist's prices, but now that the apprentice is there with a lower price, will seek to copy your hair. This is a job for Super Marketing. We'll talk about that later as well.  This will further drive up the demand for the hair color from the supplier of the chemical and could cause the price to increase more - or the supplier could take a different approach and make more to sell to the colorist at a discount. Economics studies this and makes predictions based on past behaviors.

Economics is what, exactly?

Of course it always starts with that question - what is it? It's a study. Apparently some very bored person decided to study how a society works and how they function within the limits of their available resources. Let's face it. We all have limits. Everyone. Every business. Every country. Every organization. Often the resource is money. Cold. Hard. Cash. That often can be intimidating. Very intimidating. It's the reason I spent my entire undergraduate career avoiding the class. During my masters program, I wasn't clever enough to get around the class. I struggled through the first few days of class and then it clicked. I replaced the money aspect with something to which I could relate. Specifically, shoes. So, now instead of trying to figure out how fiscal policy works, I'm thinking "shoe fund." It makes it easier.

How am I going to maximize my available resources for the maximum shoe gratification? How is my behavior going to affect my ability to satisfy my desire for shoes? That is economics. A very basic view, but economics, nonetheless.


So, I have limited resources and, well, let's face it, a shoe addiction. Don't judge. You know you're reading this because you don't understand economics either, or you think I'm incredibly funny. It's a win for me either way.

Although I make a lot of bad jokes about economists, I have a lot of respect and admiration for them. Without these studies, our society as whole would most likely cease to exist.

About me...

I'm a blonde mother of 5. I hold a MBA with a concentration in marketing and a MPA with a concentration in Management. I also have a Masters in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. I'm a seeking a Doctorate in Business Administration. I'm a Disney junkie and hopelessly addicted to Game of Thrones.  I may be a tiny bit sarcastic, too. 

Am I a dumb blonde? Often. Daily. I struggle with the whole left/right thing. Honestly, the thought of taking a class in economics had me shaking in my stilettos.  Once I broke the theories and concepts down, I understood them and the application to the real world.

  If only things like cooking and parenting could be made this simple...oh and if I could ever manage to get a holiday meal on the table with everything still warm and ready at almost the same time while the house is still reasonably clean, I think my life would be complete. 

Carolina Quinn (current shoe-diva and future blonde economist) and me.