🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
75
views

Land-use restrictions may be intended to correct inefficiencies in urban land markets. However, they also impact the distribution of educational resources, and thereby contribute to educational (and economic) inequality in the U.S. Name one land use restriction that contributes to education inequality. Be sure to (i) explain precisely what the restriction is and (ii) how it contributes to inequality in education.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
75
views

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

Retselisitsoe Pokothoane
Retselisitsoe PokothoaneLv10
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

. Vouchers to Pay Private School
Tuition
Two conditions that justify government intervention in a market are the presence of external benefits and equity concerns. Both of these issues are present in the case of primary and secondary education in the United States. Think about what education without government education would look like. In the absence of government intervention, all primary and secondary education in the US would be private. Public school districts would not exist. Parents would need to pay private firms (schools) to educate their children.

External benefits

If all education were private, it’s likely that people would buy too little education, from society’s point of view. External benefits are one reason. When a child is educated, he or she benefits and we expect his or her parents to take those benefits into account when they purchase education. But there are additional benefits to society which parents may ignore. As people become more educated, they are less likely to be unemployed or be criminals and are more likely to volunteer and vote. The presence of these external benefits is an example in support for the government getting involved in education.

Equity

Many families in the United States have low incomes. Among all children in first through twelfth grades in 2001, 46% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Since the cost of private education would be an important share of these families’ incomes, most Americans would be concerned about the fairness of relying on markets to decide how much education children receive. Current spending by these families on private education provides some support for this concern. Of all children in private school in 2001, only 25% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Therefore, equity concerns are another example in support for government getting involved in education.

Providing vs. producing education

Most economists think external benefits and equity concerns justify government intervention in education. But it is important to distinguish between government production of education and other forms of government intervention. At the level of elementary and secondary education, K- 12 education, government intervention today mostly means production of education by local school districts. To benefit, children must attend public schools. But this is not the only form intervention could take.
There are other markets where government intervention takes the form of subsidizing people’s access to products—think of financial aid to college students, for example. Many people in the US think that government should move from producing education to subsidizing access.

One form that subsidy could take is government providing vouchers to parents. Parents would use the voucher to help pay for their child’s education in a private school. After it receives the voucher, the school would turn it in and be paid by a local or state government.

Today there is a lively debate between people who think K-12 education should be delivered publicly and people who think quality and efficiency would be higher if government provided vouchers and the education was delivered by private schools. Some of these quality and efficiency arguments can be based on material we covered this week. Price competition between private schools will pressure each one to produce efficiently. Competition for students will lead private schools to offer programs of interest to parents and their children.

Answer the questions below and make use of the sources supplied. Be sure to cite you sources in your answers.

1. Explain whether a potential exit by students with vouchers will lead to the improvement of public schools. 2. Discuss whether the implementation of vouchers will lead the best students to leave public school, which could lead to a decline in education for the students left behind in the public schools. 3. Consider what might happen to the students who use vouchers to leave public schools in order to attend private schools. How might their academic performance change as a result of switching? 4. Finally, think about the impact of a voucher system on the students in an urban setting. Describe whether all families would have an equal opportunity to access education.

Your final product will be a paper that: ? Addresses each of the four questions above in total. ? Is APA formatted. ? The body is to be 2 pages minimum.

The requirements for your assignment are: 1. Answer each question fully 2. Define the overall subject of each question. 3. Cite at least three (3) resources from this week’s materials.

NOTE: I am just trying to wrap my head around these concepts so what I would like to know is of these 6 available options, which three, would be the simplest in terms of theory to explain? _______________________________________________________________________ Thevast majority of economists are classically trained, which means we tend to see the free and unencumbered functioning of the marketplace as yielding the best economic outcomes. Where policy is needed is when the market fails to produce socially acceptable results. A prime example of market failure has to do with pollution: unless polluters are forced to incorporate into their financial calculations the costs of the pollution they cause, they will overproduce and continue to destroy the environment. The following list describes situations where the government may want to step in: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Monopoly power: Markets may fail to control the abuses of monopoly power.---------- 2. Missing markets: Markets may fail to form, resulting in a failure to meet a need or want, such as the need for public goods, such as defense, street lighting, and highways. ------3. Incomplete markets: Markets may fail to produce enough merit goods, such as education and healthcare.------- 4. De-merit goods: Markets may also fail to control the manufacture and sale of goods like cigarettes and alcohol, which have less merit than consumers perceive. --------5. Property rights: Markets work most effectively when consumers and producers are granted the right to own property, but in many cases property rights cannot easily be allocated to certain resources. Failure to assign property rights may limit the ability of markets to form.-------- 6. Information failure: Markets may not provide enough information because, during a market transaction, it may not be in the interests of one party to provide full information to the other party. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Pick three from this list and explain what types of policies might be proposed to offset the market’s failure. Explain why your proposals might work but also if the policies themselves might have negative side effects.

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each essay and illustrate their relationship

The Undeserving Rich

By Paul Krugman
Published in the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014

The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s, real wages for the bottom half of the workforce have stagnated or fallen, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society shouldn't be up for argument.

But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair's famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class warfare or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already underway, with the plutocrats on offense.

The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its cruder end, this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more sophisticated end, it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of as the myth of the deserving rich.

For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a
recent column by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no big deal because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!

If this sounds wrong to you, it should: that’s a nominal number, not corrected for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been corrected on The Journal’s website.

O.K., that’s what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?

I’ve noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich.

The story goes like this: America's affluent are affluent because they made the right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the Victorian virtues.

What’s wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities that don’t exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.

But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy movement popularized the concept of the 1 percent, which is a good shorthand for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top 0.1 percent.

And who are these lucky few? Mainly they're executives of some kind, especially, although not only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so well, but one thing is clear: They didn't get where they are simply by being prudent, clean, and sober.

So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a strategy of distortion by dilution. You rarely see apologists for inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5 percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they're not, because they involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance types, who cheer on the title character another clue to the realities of our new Gilded Age.

Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they'd prefer to paint a different picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they're still the facts and they must be faced.

The False Income-Inequality Narrative

BY JASON L. RILEY

Published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 29, 2015

An enduring theme of the Democratic presidential race has been income inequality, coupled with an enduring belief that America’s affluent reached their status at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Bernie Sanders speaks of little else on the stump. And when not busy dissembling on her handling of email correspondence at the State Department, Hillary Clinton will tell you that the “deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” If Joe Biden gets in, expect more of the same. The vice president is said to be contemplating a 2016 bid in large part because struggling middle-income families may have trouble relating to Mrs. Clinton on inequality given her high living since leaving the White House.

This theme, in any case, seems to resonate with voters, which is no huge shock in the sixth year of an economic recovery. Envy and resentment fuel class warfare and lackluster economic growth throughout the Obama presidency have made people less optimistic and more inclined to fault others for their circumstances. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week reports that four-in-five Americans “were either angry because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power or anxious and uncertain. After all, the economy still feels rocky and unpredictable or both.

Liberals want to address income disparities through wealth redistribution”by taking money from more productive people and giving it to the less productive in the name of fairness as the left defines it. They want to raise income taxes, expand the welfare state, lift minimum wages, and strengthen the bargaining power of unions. Mr. Sanders has been the most explicit about this, even going so far as to propose a wealth tax. Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1%, the senator said in July.

In reality, the left has overstated the problem. And all the focus on divvying up existing wealth instead of creating more risks making matters far worse for the people they are trying to help and the country in general. to the extent that the expanding welfare state allows more people to live without working and therefore without earning income or developing their own human capital supporters of the welfare state are contributing to the very income disparities they so much decry, writes economist Thomas Sowell in his new book, “Wealth, Poverty and Politics.”

Mr. Sowell is the author of more than 30 books over the past four decades, many having to do with what drives different social and economic outcomes among different groups in the U.S. and elsewhere. In his latest tome, he draws from this well of research to do what he has done so well for so long: question basic assumptions behind public policy and follow the facts where they lead him.

One common assumption is that proportionate or random outcomes are the natural order of things and that gaps or disparities are evidence of something wrong. In fact, huge disparities are the norm, not the exception, because the demographic, cultural, and political factors that influence the development of the human capital that makes people productive also tend to be unequal.

In 2013, only 9% of U.S. women with college degrees who gave birth were unmarried, versus 61% of women who were high-school dropouts and unmarried. Harvard's Robert Putnam reports that children from professional families will hear 19 million more words than their working-class peers before the first day of kindergarten.

These children don't have the same prospects. Equal opportunity, in the sense of being judged and rewarded by the same standards as others, cannot possibly mean equal life chances for children born and raised in these very different settings, writes Mr. Sowell. The fact that life is unfair is not the same as saying that a particular institution, or a particular society, is unfair.

The argument that social mobility is a thing of the past in the U.S. also is disputable. Longitudinal studies by the IRS and others that measure the progress of individuals over time show that the American dream is alive and well. One such paper, published by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, measured “whether a person has more or less income, earnings, or wealth than his or her parents did at the same age and concluded that “the vast majority of Americans had higher incomes, while 50% had greater wealth.

In other studies, Pew has found generational stagnation but the authors have noted that it didn't apply to immigrants. If low-income immigrants can rise even when the native-born don't, writes Mr. Sowell, that strongly suggests that American society continues to offer opportunities to move up economically, but that not all groups make the same use of these opportunities.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed (Encounter Books, 2014).

Weekly leaderboard

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