http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Housing+First+program+help+homelessness/8996774/story.html

Housing First Website: http://www.raincityhousing.org/what-we-do/hfact/

In many cases, it is bad to have excess inventory, because often, the company is left with unsold, outdated products, that have only costed the company more saving on to, rather than getting them off the shelf and into customers hands.  This is the problem that happened with Blackberry, too much inventory equalled loss of profits and outdated merchandise that had to be written off.

Even though most companies avoid excess inventory/supply, in some rare cases, could extra supply be beneficial? In the rental market, with price ceilings set too low, a shortage in rentals becomes present, resulting in homelessness.  A program called “Housing First” could possibly solve this problem though.  This program helps homeless people who have extra challenges to finding a suitable home for their needs.  These people include the mentally ill, the unemployed, and people who suffer from substance abuse.  This project has an inventory of standard market apartments across Vancouver, as well as support for the people to adjust to their new homes. The program overall, made people feel safer, and  eased their concerns about everything from crime to bedbugs and drugs.

This inventory of homes set aside for people who truly need it is a beneficial and useful strategy, not only to solving homelessness, but to help people get back on their feet and to take responsibility of their lives.  Essentially, this program is a great example of the saying “a hand up, not a hand out.” The housing market and it’s government set price ceilings should really be re-examined.  Is a shortage really beneficial in order to keep prices low to the consumer, or would letting the market fall to it’s market clearing price help free this shortage and allow for inventory to create efficiency, thus helping end homelessness?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/why-the-rebirth-of-manufacturing-is-bypassing-canada/article14717261/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-05/reshoring-of-jobs-looks-meager

As the recession hit back in 2008, and costs of production rose in the US and Canada, many companies decided to move their manufacturing plants to China, resulting in the loss of jobs and a weakened economy.

It seems that things are on their way to improvement though, because many US companies are now trying to “reshore” meaning, bringing back manufacturing to the home country.  A company called Merchant House International Ltd, which makes boots for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sears Holdings Corp., has announced that it will open it’s first factory in the US.    Are things looking up when it comes to bringing back industry to the States?

This isn’t the only company that has looked into the possibility of reshoring.  In fact, “More than half of U.S. executives at manufacturers with sales of at least $1 billion (U.S.) say they are planning to repatriate some production to the United States from China.” Some of the benefits of reshoring include being closer to customers, lower transportation costs, and better product quality.

As an American, I’ve missed seeing everyday goods say “Made in the USA”.  The outsourcing to China was not solving any problems back home, in fact, it made things much worse.  As a result, our economy plummeted, our dollar decreased in value, and many people became unemployed. It’s nice to know that industries are finally seeing the benefits of bringing jobs back to America.  It may take some time, in fact, it may take 25 years, at the current rate, to bring back all lost factory jobs since 2000.  Even though it will happen slowly, in the end, reshoring will be worth the effort.  It will give the American economy the strength it needs to grow in order to be successful and efficient once again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/study-slams-athletes-promoting-junk-food/article14698232/

When it comes to advertising a product, image is everything.  It determines what kind of market the product is in, what type of consumer will buy such products, and how must it be advertised to suit the previous categories.

Over the years, brands try to re-create their image in order to gain a wider customer base. In this case, these brands got  help from athletes to help promote their products/brands.  With many brands, this seems to be a successful route, but in this case with Lebron James and Serena Williams, they were backlashed for promoting unhealthy foods.  Instead of creating a stronger brand image, the athletes sent mixed messages to the consumers.  In this case, repositioning the brand was unsuccessful and heavily criticized for it.

Since many consumers already have formed opinions about certain brands, especially now with more awareness about unhealthy foods and the risk of eating them in large quantities, these brands that tried to re-invent their image were caught in trying to deceive the consumer.  In the end result, the brands and athletes were criticized and questioned in why they would try to promote something unhealthy with a healthy person, an ironic and confusing message to us all.