The end is nigh - Amazon is coming

Today, Amazon turns 20. When it first started out, stories of large companies taking over the world via the internet were the stuff of sci-fi movies, with a ‘Back to the Future’ kind of unbelievability – 20 years on, however, they are alarmingly close to the truth.

Nicknamed the ‘Gang of Four’, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple have spread their tentacles further than anyone could have imagined. Google log everything you are curious about, Apple know your location every minute of the day and Facebook knows exactly who your ex’s new girlfriend is, because you’ve stalked her so often that they are now suggesting you add her as a friend.

Yet still, these companies are continuing to expand. Not content with being the leading e-retailer in the US, specialising in media and electronics, Amazon has now decided to expand into food delivery. From a consumer’s point of view, this may seem like a good thing – who wouldn’t want to One-Click order a curry at the same time as buying their husband’s birthday present? However, Amazon’s decision will be met with fear by many smaller companies. Much like a large predator encroaching on their turf, for many small businesses, it could mean death.

One such company is Just Eat, who have thrived since floating on the London Stock Exchange last year. Just Eat is based on the idea of helping independent restaurants thrive in a world dominated by chain restaurants – in order to stay competitive against the big chains, they willing to give up a chunk of their revenue to a tech-savvy middleman who can channel more food orders. Sadly, however, it seems that Just Eat’s time in the limelight is unlikely to last in the face of growing big company dominance; if Amazon and Google decide to expand into an industry, there simply isn’t room for anyone else.

“Just Eat is riding high on a theme that has now fully run its course,” said Cyrus Mewawalla, a London-based analyst at CM Research, who recommends selling the stock and ranks it the 6th most expensive among 41 e-commerce companies his firm tracks globally. “Within five years you’ll be able to order a hamburger through Amazon and have it delivered to your front door.”

To me, this seems a shame. Just Eat has gone from a Danish basement startup to the London Stock Exchange over the past decade; only to be shot down by a larger company as it gets into its stride. Amazon has a history of gaining control of industries that it moves into; it has already used its vast influence to almost annihilate the publishing industry, paying authors so little for their books that they are forced to turn to crowdfunding sites like Unbound just to make a living. Clearly, the same can be expected of takeaway food. Amazon will use their influence to drive down prices at participating restaurants so that they barely break even; but with the potential of Amazon’s large customer base, they just can’t afford not to take part.

Having a world market dominated by a select few companies, we risk creating a monopoly that crushes entrepreneurial spirit and kills competition needed for a healthy economy. Who in their right mind would set up a business to compete against Amazon, with their impossibly low costs and impressive logistics? No one, I should imagine; and therein lies the problem. If things continue as they are, it is no exaggeration to say that the ‘Gang of Four’ may well have the opportunity to rule the world.

Originally written for www.ukinvestormagazine.co.uk 

Student elections: Are our elected officers really worth the salaries we pay them?

As Student Officer Elections roll around at universities up and down the country, I can’t be the only one that meets election hysteria with a degree of scepticism. Now believe me, I wish I wasn’t so cynical; I wish I could envisage the glowing future articulated by candidates, and believe in their rosy promises to bring down the price of beer and finally scrap exams. 

I really want to believe that my university is a democracy with all major decisions being taken by elected representatives, because in theory, having elected officers to represent student opinion is a great idea. Students are paying huge fees and should ultimately be entitled to a voice as to where this money goes. Like Parliament on a smaller scale, issues are taken to the university trustees by elected officers and debated; yet in practice, the election of student officer positions leaves a lot to be desired.

The most controversial issue is the money involved. At my university, these elected officers are paid £24,500 per annum. At UCL, it's £25,000 and at Royal Holloway, £23,000. Outside London, the salary falls a little, but not much: at Cardiff, roles are advertised with a salary range of £19,499 - £19,959, and at Birmingham City it's £17,064 – with 40 days of paid holiday as a rather nice added bonus. A quick scroll through a graduate job site shows that the most common starting salaries for graduates in London are between £18,000 and £22,000, making elected officer salaries undoubtedly above the average.

This year, Queen Mary kicked off their elections by advertising the role on a poster with a simple message: “Earn £24,500”. And herein lies the problem. Because surely, this can only be a hindrance to the campaign; instead of encouraging applicants who care about the union, the roles will be taken by those enticed by the idea of having a nice year out with generous remuneration. The whole thing becomes something of a farce, where the only people who have a real interest in the election are the campaigners because of what they stand to gain; making wild promises that students know cannot be kept in order to win. Surely, this unspoken reality of the election process undermines the point of voting at all?

At a time when universities are permitted to charge £9,000 a year, it is more important than ever that students feel their fees are justified; so forgive me if, when my student debt is funding these elected officers' salaries, I expect to see some results. However, when manifestos are based on vague statements such as “I'll continue to seek new platforms to gather your views” (University of Greenwich), it’s difficult to hold officers accountable and see what they have actually achieved. Similarly, statements like “Cash machines are still unreliable. I will communicate with the banks to find the solution” (University of Bath) and “We will ensure buses are accessible and frequent” (University of Warwick) are equally unbelievable. Students aren’t stupid – we know these officers don’t have the power to fix cash points or change a bus timetable. And yet, we all seem to buy into this idea that they can, year after year – and then pay them a large sum of money to do it.

I love the idea. I love that student elections aim to promote democracy on campus, give students the chance to hold the university trustees accountable and, indirectly, encourage participation in politics on a wider scale. But the facts speak for themselves; in 2014, the National Student Survey revealed that only 68 per cebt students are satisfied with their union. When an entire university’s election campaign gets only 3,572 votes – a total of 17 per cent of the student body voting – it is clear that all most students feel is apathy, and something needs to change. Increase accountability, ban empty promises and stop using money as an incentive to stand; then perhaps student elections will become something worthy of a vote.

Originally written for the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/istudents/student-elections-are-our-elected-officers-really-worth-the-salaries-we-pay-them-10086239.html

Singapore named the most expensive city in the world for second year running

Singapore has been named the most expensive city in the world for a second year running, in a new survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

The top five cities on the list remained unchanged from last year, with Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney all coming consecutively after Singapore. According to the EIU, it is “relatively rare” to have an identical top five two years in a row.

The EIU’s Worldwide Cost of Living report includes 133 cities worldwide, using New York’s prices as a base. The survey is designed to help human resource managers calculate cost-of-living allowances for business travellers and compares prices across 160 products and services, including food, drink, clothing, rent and transport.

However, according to Lonely Planet tourists should not be put off by the high prices; Singapore topped their Best in Travel 2015 list, released at the end of last year. Selected for its cuisine and culture, the city-state also celebrates fifty years of independence this year.

Grocery prices in Singapore are 11% higher than New York, and it is 50% more expensive for clothing. Utility costs are high; as city-state with limited resources of its own, it is reliant heavily on other countries for supply of energy and water. Transport costs are also triple those in New York, which the EIU attributes to “Singapore's complex Certificate of Entitlement system” –  the ten-year license that drivers must purchase to buy a vehicle - which makes car prices “excessive”. The top ten is completed by Melbourne, Geneva, Copenhagen, Hong Kong and Seoul.

Major Japanese cities like Tokyo and Osaka were missing from the list for the first time in 20 years, due to devaluation of the yen and weak inflation. Karachi, the capital of Pakistan, came top of the list of the world’s cheapest cities, followed by Bangalore, Caracas, Mumbai, Chennai and New Delhi. Bucharest is the only European country on this list; although wages are low, the cost of living is too offering relative value for money. The biggest faller was Caracas in Venezuela, which slid 124 places. Usually a consistently expensive city, reaching 6^th place last year, it came out as one of the cheapest in this survey due to a weaker currency and the use of multiple exchange rates.

Originally for The Independent: 

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/singapore-named-the-most-expensive-city-in-the-world-for-second-year-running-10082202.html