Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Some stuff

I sent all the notes to you via email - here are a couple links regarding rent:

http://www.reffonomics.com/inframarginalrent.html
http://www.reffonomics.com/pureeconomicrent.html

And a couple of questions on labor inequalities:

1. Explain the difference between poverty defined absolutely and poverty defined relatively. Which definition is the basis of the poverty line?

2. Suppose each family in the US earned an equal money income. What would be the effect?

3. We have assumed that labor is supplied by individual workers acting competitively. In some markets, however, the supply of labor is determined by a union of workers.
a. Explain why the situation faced by a labor union may resemble the situation faced by a monopoly firm.
b. The goal of a monopoly firm is to maximize profits. Is there an analogous goal for labor unions?
c. Extend the analogy between monopoly firms & unions. How do you suppose that the wage set by a union compares to the wage in a competitive market? How do you suppose employment differs in the two cases?

4. College students sometimes work as summer interns for private firms or the government. Many of these positions pay very little or nothing.
a. What is the opportunity cost of taking such a job?
b. Explain why students are willing to take these jobs.If you were to compare the earnings later in life of workers who had worked as interns and those that had taken summer jobs that paid more, what would you expect to find?

5. Economist June O’Neill argues that “until family roles are more equal, women are not likely to have the same pattern of market work and earnings as men.” What does she mean by the “pattern” of market work? How do these characteristics of jobs and careers affect earnings?

I'll post some more reminders later on the earlier stuff for the national exam next week.

KM

27 comments:

The Amazing O-clam said...

5. Women make $0.80 for every $1.00 that men make, The pattern is that women make less, so we are all equal, women will continue to make less money in careers, and also tend to hit the invisible barrier, while men can pass through it and get further up the ladder in larger companies.

4.a. The opportunity cost is the pay they would be making if they worked at a job that actually paid money.
4.b. The education effect, screening effect, whatever, It shows people that students are smart, and if they have experience, will make more money. If you look at later on in life, students who didn't intern will be making much less money than those that did. That is why students take internships.

gorman said...

4a. opportunity cost is getting a hiring paying job

b. students are willing to take these jobs to build up a network of contacts. You are more likely to get ajob if you have some experience at the jobsite vs no experience. In the long run, students that take internships are more likely to get a job easier and probably make more money because of the experience

gorman said...

2. The effect would be that there would only be one class. I think this would be a bad thing, because some people work harder than others and some people wouldn't work at all and get the same income. i think the different classes of people in society make people strive to work harder to better their life and the people at the top to remain on their toes and continue to work hard to maintain their lifestyle

Joe Madden said...

there are less women in the work force...probably not by that much, but since there is less of a force, this sets limitations (glass celing).

Bethany said...

2. Is this asking the affects of communisim? Well, first of all, there wouldn't be enough resources to support everyone at the same level if it were to be a comfortable level. Second, if a worker knew that regardless of how hard they tried, they would get the same salary, most logical workers wouldn't do their very best, because the efforts would be futile. Bad. Very Bad.

Bethany said...

5. I think 'the pattern of market work' is refering to how women take maternity leaves and other breaks because of family. I think women are not paid as much a man sometimes because the employer anticipates these breaks. They may be less willing to give the woman more responsibility because she may not be there all the time. I don't know if family roles will ever be equal because there are just some things that men can't do, and vice versa.

cranjos said...

im soo excited that i just remembered those readings...i havent done a whole today, and its been relaxing, and now i get to do some economic reading and answer the questions that go along with it!! Yay!!!

cranjos said...

4.) a.) The opportunity cost of the interns is everything they give up while observing...chillin with friends, working out, spending time at home, and the money they would make working somewhere else
b.) I'm guessing the whole sitting in thing and being an intern has its benefits, and although the interns' opportunity cost was high for that summer, the money they make down the road probably makes up for it

Reid said...

Hey Guy's,
I'm back. I'll let you all know how nationals went in class. Right now though, I need to get caught up. KM if your there, can we meet tomorrow morning, because, I have a lot of work to do and not so much time!!!!!!!!!! Just a little stressed. Hopefully see ya tomorrow morning.

amepham said...

4a.The opportunity cost is a paying job.

4b.Interning for little or no pay will get you farther in the long run because when you get a job in that field your starting pay will be higher than someone who took the summer job. Only because of the extra experience you already have.

amepham said...

2. i believe that is called communism. This is not good for most people because some people will get paid the same amount for doing less work. I think that all around people would try less knowing that they are guaranteed a certain amount of money.

schmid said...

2. It would not be beneficial for every family in the US to earn an equal money income. Besides it would be near impossible to accomplish equality in all incomes. In addition, the lack of diversity in income would result in a lack of external motivation for many workers. Most people would think, "Why should I try harder, or work harder, if I get paid the same as the next guy who sits around all day". In the end I think it would not be beneficial to establish equal incomes for every family in the US.

forsnic said...

1. Absolute poverty are the poor who dont havethe resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living. (food, shelter, and clothing) using this definition about 12.5% of the US was "poor" in 2003.
Relative poverty are the poor with significantly less access to income and wealth than others in their society. In 2000, 28.3% had incomes below the median.

schmid said...

4a. The opportunity cost is getting a payed job.

...well it is getting late and I have an AP bio test in the morning complete with breakfast...too bad the whole test thing couldn't be canceled and it wasn't just a breakfast...Oh well...at least bio will be over-well almost over (besides the two day final we take after the AP exam!)

forsnic said...

2. If everyone earned the same income, some will say this is good, but i disagree. if this happened, no one would be better than anyone else. I am familiar with this type of situation because i went to a school that enfored uniforms so "clothes wouldn't define status and everyone would be the same". screw that. uniforms or incomes can't hide intellect or talents and that is what income should be based on.

forsnic said...

i know waht u mean sarah. i totally agree. haha we're both doing this at the same time. wow

theczyzewicz said...

4 a) the opportunity cost of taking that job is the money that they won't be making to pay back their student loans or whatever.
b)people are willing to take these jobs because of how much they actually are learning, and they get experience so they are more likely to get a job when they just get out of college. By taking the internship instead of working at a summer job, they aren't making much or any money, but they are making themselves more marketable for future jobs, which will earn them more money in the long run.

theczyzewicz said...

thank you josh, for reminding me that i have to do allll of those readings yet tonight, or else i would not have even thought about it. *sigh*

Annie said...

#2. I think that there would be a lot less people in poverty however the hard-workign aspect of a person's job would be eliminated because they have no incentive to work harder to get more money. Much less would be accomplished by all firms.

Annie said...

4. the opportunity cost of taking a low paying governemnt or intern job is the money that you could have made working elsewhere for more money, and the free or luxury time that would be available.

students are willing to take these jobs because of the experience that it provides and the fact that it may lead to later employment and at the least a good resume builder. i would expect that people who worked as interns eventually ended up making slightly more although those who had higher paying summer jobs may not have had intern possibilities for their future job (which may have still been high paying)

jacnbox said...

2. similar to inflation. and then people wouldnt work as hard because there is no incentive. i believe it would cause our economy to crash.

sorry, if this seems a little lathergic. im real tire,d

jacnbox said...

4 a.
real pay vs. experience

4 b.
interns earn the money in the long run. they are more experienced and connections go a long way in the job market.

Reid said...

2. I think that having everyone on the same playing field as far as money goes would be a bad thing? Why, because it reduces motivation for production. Why produce more when the benefits of labor would be the same as if only one was produced. This probably would create a shortage of goods and increase the price, up to the point where people couldn't buy the good, and so on so on so fourth, and all of our economy tumbles. That's why I think it's weird that command economy kind of works. I guess a mixture of market and command economy is necessary for the economy to strive.

Reid said...

5. I think that the pattern of market work is talking about what the basis of wage is. Like the whole access to supplies, and knowlege thing. Maybe she is stating that women aren't given and equal salary or wage due to the fact that they are a woman, and people can't get past the household wife barrier of the 1940's and 50's. Wow, I feel sexist.

cherie said...

Oh yea...I forgot to do the reading. I'll be having fun in 1st hour study hall tomorrow.

cherie said...

Test in 4 days. I'm excited for it to be over. Anybody else excited for it to be over?

bjjames said...

A labor union acts much like a monopoly in the fact that it controls the market.
b. labor unions also try to maximize their income, but it isn't nearly as easy to do because there is always someone else willing to work
c. the wage of a union is similar to competitive markets in that it is set based on demand, but employment is always demanded.

4. Opportunity cost = money, time to do fun stuff
b. The students who had internships make more in the long run than those who took regular summer jobs.

5. Market work = considering don't alwyas have the smae jobs, so their market is much different in many cases - stereotype, but its getting better, women don't work the hard jobs or hard labor jobs...so make less, but that is changing.