Schlumberger cuts 9,000 jobs due to low oil prices

The oil company Schlumberger recently laid off 9,000 workers due to the rapid decrease in oil prices. The cost of oil has dropped by more than 50 percent since June. The 9,000 workers that were laid off by the company makes up about 7.5 percent of the company's global workforce. Earnings were down as well for the company, 82 percent lower than they were one year ago. The company has had to make several costly charges due the drop in oil prices, as well as almost completely restructure and resize. Among these charges were a $296 million charge for the 9,000 jobs, $590 million of seismic assets due to the restructuring of the company, $472 million for devaluation in Venezuela, and $199 million for oilfield assets due to the drop in value as a result of the decrease in oil prices.  

While it's beneficial for most of the population to have lower oil prices, these low prices are causing quite a noticeable impact on the oil field and its workers. With the size of the oil industry, a lot of damage might be caused as a result of lost jobs due to the budget cuts from the sharp decline in oil prices.

The fall in the price of oil and gas provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies

The price of energy has been on a steep decline for the past several months. Oil is the most noticeable form, due to its enormous presence in the world's energy supply, but other forms of energy have been dropping, as well. Natural gas prices are the lowest they've been in 10 years, and cleaner, renewable forms of energy have been dropping in price as well due to the increase in understanding and production of the technology. This all-around drop in energy prices poses an excellent opportunity for the country's government to make some much needed changes. 

Rarely is such major change possibly in such a short amount of time, but because of how rapid the fall in prices have been a major change is achievable. Taking advantage of the current low prices in energy the country can reform its energy policy to include more efficient, renewable, and clean alternatives to the old methods that have been used for years. 

I think this is a very good opportunity for the United States as well as other country's to move away from non-renewable resources. Moving away from non-renewable resources and redoing the infrastructure of how the country gets its energy will greatly benefit future generations.

Exelon must shoulder financial burden of its nuclear plants

Exelon established six nuclear power plants over the course of several years. In the past decade, they have done fairly well bringing in more than $21 billion in profits. The high profits can largely be attributed to high electricity prices. But as the price of natural gas and oil have been steadily decreasing recently, many consumers are turning to those means of energy. Because of this recent loss in interest in what the nuclear plants have to offer, profits for the plants have been quite low and Exelon is seriously considering closing up to half of its power plants. 

Exelon has been pushing for legislature to get consumers to pay more, which would all-around be bad for consumers, but all-around good for the company. This may seem like a ridiculous request that would never be met by the local government, but Exelon has ties in government and the plants provide many jobs. There would need to be a few necessary guidelines for this piece of legislature to work: the first would be to share the risks and rewards of the increased investment in the plants equally between the company and the consumers. The second requirement would be that the state would need to prioritize clean and efficient energy resources, so that the plant would gain more profits. The final guideline is that any support is to be given only after an analysis of Exelon's financial situation.

I don't like the fact that a private energy company can make billions of dollars, but once they start to lose money they have the power to influence government into helping them out. In a mostly free-market economy, there shouldn't be this level of influence over the government to receive financial help.

India’s economic growth is driving its energy consumption

India’s economic growth is driving its energy consumption

As the world's fourth largest energy consumer, India has far from a low energy consumption. Their economy is also quite large, the tenth largest in terms of US dollars. When looking at real GDP and purchasing power India is has the third largest economy. Despite the current large size of their economy, it continues to grow, and has grown substantially over the past couple decades. Over the past 15 years their real GDP has grown at a rate of 7% annually, and continues to grow. 

While a growing economy is generally a good thing, it means an increase in consumption of goods, resources, and especially energy. India has struggled in the past to provide adequate energy resources, relying heavily on foreign imports. Despite having the World's fifth-largest coal reserves, of which this resource is their primary source of energy, their is still a shortage of energy. The energy consumption per capita in India is substantially lower than that of developed countries, but because of the very large population in India the lower per capita energy consumption helps the problem of energy minimally. As the county's economy grows, and their energy consumption with it, it will be a challenge for the country to provide and afford an adequate supply of energy.

It is good to see that developing country's economies are growing. India is one of the developing countries whose presence has become quite noticeable in the world economy in the past several years. It will be interesting to see how the country solves the issue of energy consumption. 

Poverty: Not always with us

Poverty: Not always with us

In 2000, 147 government leaders had pledged to cut the world's percentage of people living in dire poverty, that is making less than $1.25 a day, in half using the poverty level in 1990 as their baseline. Many of the other goals set by the United Nations, that they call the "millennium development goals", have not been met, but this one has. In just 20 years the world's poverty level has been cut in half. This got people thinking, it we could cut the poverty level by 50 percent in twenty years, could we get rid of the other half in the next 20 years?

At a press conference in April 2013 the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, wrote the number 2030 on a piece of paper, held it up to the audience and said that that was the year we would completely eradicate poverty. However, he was not the first person to make this pledge. Earlier that year Barack Obama had said that within the next two decades there would be no more poverty. Many other people of influence have said this in the past, as well. While things are looking good, and great progress is being made, it will be quite the challenge to completely eradicate poverty in the next 20 years. Despite the apparent difficulty, it is a challenge that many world leaders are willing to take on.  

The U.S. Is Losing a Generation to Poverty

The U.S. Is Losing a Generation to Poverty

For the first time since the Great Recession, poverty has declined. From last year to this one poverty in the United States has decreased by .5 percent from 15 percent to 14.5 percent and child poverty has also decreased by almost 2 percent. While these numbers are not very substantial, it is a step forward and had some people quite happy. Despite this seemingly good news, however, poverty rates are still higher than they were before the recession, this is just the first time they've gone down. At the current rate it would take until 2020 for the poverty rate to be at the 2000 level.

The article talks about the qualifications of being in poverty, this formula was made by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. That was 30 years ago, and the world has changed quite a bit. It is a little less obvious now who is and is not in poverty. It has become quite a common struggle in the United States, with our poverty rate higher than other developed nations such as France and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, children are also the poorest demographic group in the US. Children in poverty are at risk of developmental delays due to malnourishment, and these developmental delays limit their future potential. The article concludes by urging that it should be realized that poverty is less widespread than we think.

1 in 5 Children Live in Poverty in U.S.

1 in 5 Children Live in Poverty in U.S.


The latest data published by the US Census Bureau shows that 1 in  5, or 21.3%, of children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. 15, 437,000 children in the US under 18 are living in poverty. Poverty rates across the nation were based upon a variety of factors. The official definition of poverty stated that an average family of four is considered poor if they have an income lower than $23,492. These reports are the new basis for statistics of poverty in the US. The CRS states that a family is poor if  "their family’s countable money income is below its corresponding poverty threshold.”

Despite these seemingly large numbers child poverty has decreased over 6% since President Lyndon B. Johnson announced the War on Poverty in 1964. But the percentage of impoverished children in 2012 barely changed since the previous year. The lowest poverty rate to be recorded was in 1969, with only a 13.8% child poverty rate. The article also discussed the fact that children living in single-headed female households had the highest probability for poverty, saying 47.2% of people that fit this description were poor, This probability was quite the change from the much lower number of 11.1% of children among married couples are poor.