Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
55
views

If you need to make any assumptions, state them clearly. President Alcazar announced an increase in the labor subsidy given to firms to try to boost employment and GDP. The subsidies received by a firm are in proportion to the number of workers it employs, that is equal to s N, where s is the subsidy rate and N the number of workers employed. The government pays subsidies to firms, whose post-subsidy profits are distributed to households as income. However, the subsidies are financed by a lump-sum tax on households. The lump-sum tax is such that the government budget is balanced. Show that, for any given level of real wages, the net direct effect of this policy, subsidies and corresponding lump-sum taxes, on household’s disposable income is negative.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
55
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Raushan Raj
Raushan RajLv8
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

President Alcazar announced an increase in the labor subsidy given to firms to try to boost employment and GDP. The subsidies received by a firm are in proportion to the number of workers it employs, that is equal to s N, where s is the subsidy rate and N the number of workers employed. The government pays subsidies to firms, whose post-subsidy profits are distributed to households as income. However, the subsidies are financed by a lump-sum tax on households. The lump-sum tax is such that the government budget is balanced. Show that, for any given level of real wages, the net direct effect of this policy, subsidies and corresponding lump-sum taxes, on household’s disposable income is negative.

Because sports facilities are not expected to generate additional net output in a metropolitan area and no systematic empirical analysis ever finds evidence that they do, sports facilities cannot be counted on to augment tax collections. Indeed, public expenditures occasioned by operating a sports facility generally exceed revenues generated by it. To assess the budgetary impact of a new facility, however, it is necessary to know the financing and lease terms. If the financing burden is large and falls primarily on public coffers and if the lease terms are concessionary to the team, then the public obligation for debt service, infrastructure maintenance, environmental remediation, incremental sanitation and security expense, probable cost overruns, and subsequent facility enhancement is likely to generate a substantial budgetary hole in the municipal, county and/or state accounts. Such budgetary gaps must be filled either with decreased government services or with higher taxes; either will produce a drag on the local economy. Unfortunately for host cities, the monopoly status of the major team sports leagues has enabled the teams to drive impressive bargains in negotiating financing and lease terms. Even as sports facilities have grown more and more expensive, in some cases costing over half a billion dollars, public contributions to construction costs have continued to average nearly 70 percent. Quirk and Fort (1992, pp. 170-171), after studying 25 facilities built between 1978 and 1992, concluded that the host cities provided on average a $7 million per year operating subsidy to the team. In none of the cases did the host city receive a positive net operating income from the facility. The perverse influence of the 1986 Tax Reform Act on lease terms described above and the escalating costs of recent facility construction suggest that the size of these subsidies has only grown since 1992. Promotional economic impact studies often claim that an additional positive economic stimulus is derived from the actual construction of the sports facility. The problem with this contention is that the funds to build the stadium or arena have an opportunity cost. If the construction is funded by the city, then the city must raise the money via higher taxes or reduced services. Spending on construction thereby causes lower spending by the government in other areas or lower disposable household income. If stimulating a local economy were so simple, every municipal government could guarantee full employment with a public works program that hired workers to dig holes in the ground and then hired other workers to fill the holes. Only in the case where some of the funding comes from state or federal coffers can the city expect to experience a net job gain from facility construction, and in this case, the gain comes at the expense of worker layoffs elsewhere in the state or country. The logical implications of both multiplier and budget impact analysis are consistent with the results of empirical studies that fail to detect any discernible effects on local economic growth associated with a sports facility or a team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. They argue that the lack of economic benefits is due in part to the budgetary impact of the stadium construction. What do they mean? Explain your answer with sufficient detail to convince me you read that part of the article

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, “Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor,” Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, “Income, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,” Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and “Where Money Seems to Talk,” Economist, 12 July 200

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in