Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
little2add

The Real Reason Toys R Us Is Closing

Recommended Posts

little2add

Charles Lazarus, who founded Toys "R" Us 70 years ago, died Thursday, a week after the company announced it will be forced to shut down its U.S. operations.

Lazarus, 94, no longer held a stake in the chain. He started the company in 1948 when he was 25, anticipating that the post-war baby boom would create demand for baby supplies and toys. He remained CEO until 1994. 

the baby boom (Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964) is long over, and so has the demand for baby supplies and toys.  

it’s just a matter of time before the trends that toppled the troubled toy maker put the squeeze on businesses that cater to consumers of all ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
4 hours ago, little2add said:

Charles Lazarus, who founded Toys "R" Us 70 years ago, died Thursday, a week after the company announced it will be forced to shut down its U.S. operations.

Lazarus, 94, no longer held a stake in the chain. He started the company in 1948 when he was 25, anticipating that the post-war baby boom would create demand for baby supplies and toys. He remained CEO until 1994. 

the baby boom (Baby boomers are those people born worldwide between 1946 and 1964) is long over, and so has the demand for baby supplies and toys.  

it’s just a matter of time before the trends that toppled the troubled toy maker put the squeeze on businesses that cater to consumers of all ages.

This is where I disagree again, if we are talking about just the number of live births the United States birth rate is still well above the pre-WWII rate.
livebirthrateUS.gif

And a second chart that extends the years out a little bit.

chart.jpg

Edited by GreenScapularedHuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

did you factor in the population, then and now?  the population of the US nearly doubled from 1945 to 1961

The U.S. birthrate exploded after World War II. From 1944 to 1961, more than 65 million children were born in the United States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
1 minute ago, little2add said:

did you factor in the population, then and now?  the population of the US nearly doubled from 1945 to 1961

The U.S. birthrate exploded after World War II. From 1944 to 1961, more than 65 million children were born in the United States

This was done by the American CDC... I can tell you that if you checked my link previously you would know that the idea that the America is at an all-time low birth rate is really a stretch of the numbers... but if we are talking about purely raw births (not births as a percentage proportion of the population) birth rates are about the same.

Which the slight decreases in overall American birthrate has a lot more to do with persons under 25 having less births, in particular teens.
Birth-Rates-By-Age-Group.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

 106.20 (1950) minus 62.90 (2014)= 33.3 per 1000 drop according to the CDC/NCHS

Screen_Shot_2018-03-24_at_6.21.48_PM.png

 

 

Screen_Shot_2018-03-24_at_6.22.02_PM.png

 

The fertility rate in the US, between 1950 and  2014 decreased significantly from 106.2/per thousand  down to 62.9/per thousand.   a drop of  33.3/per Thousand.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
49 minutes ago, little2add said:

 106.20 (1950) minus 62.90 (2014)= 33.3 per 1000 drop according to the CDC/NCHS

Screen_Shot_2018-03-24_at_6.21.48_PM.png

 

 

Screen_Shot_2018-03-24_at_6.22.02_PM.png

 

The fertility rate in the US, between 1950 and  2014 decreased significantly from 106.2/per thousand  down to 62.9/per thousand.   a drop of  33.3/per Thousand.   

 

 

If you took the time to read what I wrote... you could answer yourself. But lets try again...

The rate is based on a proportion of the population. Lets use another comparison to explain just a wee bit. The United States on gross GDP (PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) (meaning that it is adjusted for parity purchasing power, oversimplified meaning that differences in local markets and exchanges are accounted for) is currently holding place at the number two or three spot internationally depending on if you count the European Union proper. The gross GDP (PPP) for the United States is roughly 18.5-19.9 trillion dollars whereas China is roughly 21.4-23.1 trillion dollars whereas the European Union is 19.7-20.8 trillion dollars.  Thigh might give you the impression that China has a comparable if not surpassing economy/market compared to the United States and/or the European Union but that would be incorrect... Looking at countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (or per person) shows a different story... The United States ranges from 57-59 thousand dollars per capita (9th-12th) whereas the European Union (somewhere in the 20s-30s in ranking) has at an estimation 36-41 thousand per capita and China has a 15-16 thousand dollars per capita putting them well behind nations like Iraq.

So if you look at GDP (PPP) China is king of the hill whereas not really...

So how does this rate? The American population has seen life expectancy and overall population increase...
Aging-331.png
lifeexpectancy.gif
So what has happened since the 1950s isn't a sudden decline in births but rather proportional to the population people are simply not speeding up with the aging and growing population.

So in the same way that China's GDP (PPP) is a bit deceptive is the same way that the birth rate proportionally is a bit deceptive as you provide it... because there hasn't really been a decrease in births in the United States because its not taking into account that older generations and younger generations are having less children, the first because they had children already and aren't really in a position to keep having children, the second because of effective unplanned pregnancy prevention.

So this is why I concluded your argument that you deposited is false. Because the amount of children in America when Toys-R-Us was founded is roughly still in America today. So no... lack of children didn't cause the failure of Toys-R-Us...

Addendum: Maybe to put it even more simply... lets just use math... The population of the US in the 1950s was about 150 million and the US population today is about 300 million... so its about doubled. And just by coincidence (not coincidence) the birth rate per population dropped by about half.

To use an example of how this might look... suppose you have one hundred pennies every day to give to your living descendants... you start out with only a few... suppose you have five so they each get twenty cents. But then they have three children each children... so lets say you give out to 15 children and grand children so that drops to about six cents each. The reason isn't because you have less money but rather because its disturbing to a larger number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

The present overall fertility rate puts the United States population below replacement level, but that does not mean the population is declining.

In 2016, the fertility rate in the United States was the lowest it has ever been.

There were 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down 1 percent from 2015. There were 3,941,109 babies born in 2016.

In an analysis issued by the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers report that birthrates declined to record lows in all groups under age 30. Among women ages 20 to 24, the decline was 4 percent. For women 25 to 29, the rate fell 2 percent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
29 minutes ago, little2add said:

The present overall fertility rate puts the United States population below replacement level, but that does not mean the population is declining.

In 2016, the fertility rate in the United States was the lowest it has ever been.

There were 62 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, down 1 percent from 2015. There were 3,941,109 babies born in 2016.

In an analysis issued by the National Center for Health Statistics, researchers report that birthrates declined to record lows in all groups under age 30. Among women ages 20 to 24, the decline was 4 percent. For women 25 to 29, the rate fell 2 percent.

:| So basically... we are moving the goal posts from there are less children to the birth rate has decreased...

What does that have to do with Toys-R-Us or your claim that there just werent enough children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

I see economics isn't your strong point, is it?  

please see the Washington post story linked below.  according to Toys R Us, which also operates the Babies R Us stores annual report, its income is linked to birthrates.  The change in the number of children born in the previous 12 years (and thus sitting right within the Toys R Us demographic), tracks closely with the company’s changing annual revenue.

Toys R Us’s baby problem is everybody’s baby problem LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/15/toys-r-uss-baby-problem-is-everybodys-baby-problem/?utm_term=.67d8d79b9e69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenScapularedHuman
21 minutes ago, little2add said:

I see economics isn't your strong point, is it?  

please see the Washington post story linked below.  according to Toys R Us, which also operates the Babies R Us stores annual report, its income is linked to birthrates.  The change in the number of children born in the previous 12 years (and thus sitting right within the Toys R Us demographic), tracks closely with the company’s changing annual revenue.

Toys R Us’s baby problem is everybody’s baby problem LINK: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/15/toys-r-uss-baby-problem-is-everybodys-baby-problem/?utm_term=.67d8d79b9e69

One, we are discussing demographics NOT economics, sure there is overlap/relationships between the but come on lets not conflate the two... and if we are going to conflate lets call it what it really is which is 'socioeconomics'. Two, the rationale seems still pretty specious to me and based purely on the self-analysis of Toys-R-Us which I would just on the fact that they went under would count as pretty dodgy. The article you cite correctly points out 'There are, to be sure, numerous other factors at play. The same economic forces that encourage people to have children may also encourage them to splurge on toys, for example." However the article does point out a perhaps valid observation, more children just statistically means more profits, so the less more children the are the less their profits are, which if that was their only equation for running Toys-R-Us is hard to imagine how that business model failed... (I'm being sarcastic). Three, the article doesn't really address the fact that there are about the same amount of children as there was decades ago in America... but they do mention economic factors and less interested children played more of a factor...

So yes... I can see how more kids equals more profits by just sheer numbers... it also ignores economic realities (like decreasing disposable income and recessions), failure to adapt to the markets/demands of their choice demographics, failure to compete with competitors, and failure to suppress prices.

But by no means does this mean that there are less kids today than there was before... or was this the reason Toys-R-Us failed... to put it simply... 'There are to be sure numerous other factors at play.' I mean lets be really really honest, even if there were less kids... that is no reason for Toys-R-Us to go belly-up.

Edited by GreenScapularedHuman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CatherineM

The number of children in Canada is increasing, but that is due to the exploding birth rate among aboriginal communities and the influx of immigrants. Both those groups have little expendable income for a lot of toys. Car seats and strollers but not teddy bears. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist
On 3/24/2018 at 11:07 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Not rude at all...

It's a common phrase not normally used in a rude manner or taken to be rude. But I don't know how well you two have been discussing the subject. 

I'll add only that by 2030 older Americans will outnumber the young. That is a sign of a dying society. Would this be happening if abortion and contraception were not so widespread?

There is also evidence that I haven't link to that more babies are aborted than are born in places like New York City. So yeah for me it does seem the down fall of Toys are Us was at least in part due to mass-murder of children or the mass prevention of the existence of children. 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html

Worldwide by 2020, America will just be a little bit late to the game. 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-crossing-will-see-old-people-to-outnumber-children-for-the-first-time-before-2020/news-story/4b82c792712890097e69efce6808d37b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...