1. What is Barcelona, Spain meat and vegetable consumption rates and what type of food do they eat?

2. Do most people in Barcelona, Spain own or rent their homes? Also do they live in one- family dwellings or with other families?

3. What type of clothing do Barcelona, Spain people wear to work and what percentage of income are spent on recreation, sports, and other leisure activities?

answer

watching

101

views

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

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Reid WolffLv2

14 Jul 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

The vast majority of consumers have a relatively inflexible leisure budget. If a sports team moves to town, the money one spends taking a family to a game typically is money that is not spent at a local bowling alley, golf course, restaurant or theatre. The net effect on spending in the metropolitan area then is zero or very closes to zero. While sports teams may rearrange the spending and economic activity in an urban area, they are not likely to add much to it. An important exception to this reasoning occurs when sports teams attract new money into an area. If it were true, as the Boston Red Sox claim, that 35 percent of the fans at a typical game in Fenway Park came from out of state, then each game would bring tens of thousands of dollars of new demand to the Boston metropolitan area. Several qualifiers should be noted, however. First, the experience of major league teams in the various sports suggests that the general range of fans from "out of the area" is from 5 to 20 percent (Noll and Zimbalist, 1997a, chs. 2, 15; Crompton, 1995). Of course, this range depends on how one defines "the area." A strict definition of urban limits and, hence, a smaller radius around the stadium or arena, implies a larger percentage from outside the area. A combined metropolitan statistical area that includes several counties implies a smaller proportion of fans from outside the area. Thus, the smaller the radius, the greater the amount of "new spending." Conceptually, the benefit principle of taxation would imply that the delineated area should coincide with the tax jurisdiction that supports the construction and operation of the facility.6 Second, there is considerable evidence that out-of-state fans at most sporting events do not come to town because of the game. Rather, they are in town for business reasons, to see family or for other leisure activities. If they were not at the game, they would spend their money on other entertainment in the same city. Hence, their disbursements in and around the ballpark substitute for another local spending. Further, they may be guests of a local business or family who pays for the tickets and concessions, in which case there also is no new money attracted from outside of the area (Noll and Zimbalist, 1997b). Some stadium proponents have also argued that the local sports team attracts visiting media personnel from other cities. This, of course, is as true for journalists as it is for television or radio reporters and team members themselves. But there is no net contribution here because the inflow is offset by a similar outflow of team members and media personnel when the local team plays away games. Finally, in addition to attracting some new spending from out-of-state fans coming to ball games, professional sports teams also receive distributions of national television contracts and other funds from their central league office. To the extent that these funds remain in the local economy, additional new local demand may be attributed to a sports team. As we shall see in the next section, however, certain substantial leakages retard this effect.

1. Read the above sentences and explain how a substitution effect is relevant for evaluating the economic impact of professional sports franchises.

champagnellama936

Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. Yet, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1992; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997; Waldon, 1997; Coates and Humphreys, 1999). These results stand in distinct contrast to the promotional studies that are typically done by consulting firms under the hire of teams or local chambers of commerce supporting facility development. Typically, such promotional studies project future impact and almost inevitably adopt unrealistic assumptions regarding local value-added, new spending, and associated multipliers. They often use a regional input-output model that depends on outdated technical coefficients which are treated as invariant to shifts in supply and demand (Center for Economic and Management Research, 1991; Deloitte & Touche, 1994, 1996; KPMG, 1996; Economic Research Associates, 1996; KPMG, 1998; C.H. Johnson Consulting, 1999). The academic work on the economic impact of sports facilities and teams does not rely upon projection. Rather, it compares the local economic performance of areas with and without stadiums, arenas, and teams, controlling for other variables that affect local economic conditions. Among cross-section studies, for example, Baade (1994) found no significant difference in personal income growth from 1958 to 1987 between 36 metropolitan areas that hosted a team in one of the four premier professional sports leagues and 12 otherwise comparable areas that did not. Looking at 46 cities over the 1990-94 periods, Waldon (1997) found that higher high school graduation rates and more spending on police are what encouraged economic growth, while the presence of a major league sports team actually put a drag on the local economy. Both Baade and Waldon controlled for other factors affecting underlying trends in economic growth. Time-series studies confirm the cross-section results. Baade and Sanderson (1997), for example, found no perceptible net increase in economic activity or employment in 10 cities that acquired new sports teams between 1958 and 1993 after factoring out other economic trends affecting each area. They did observe a reordering of leisure expenditures within the cities that acquired new teams, but there was no evidence that the new sports teams brought output or employment growth to the local area. A more recent study, by Coates and Humphreys (1999), finds that new stadiums and sports teams actually reduce per capita income in the host communities. This result is consistent with a higher (negative) multiplier for the displaced leisure expenditures than for the expenditures on a new team or in a new stadium because the latter likely involve substantial leakages from the local economy to the remote residential locations of some players and team owners. The conclusion that sports teams and facilities do not stimulate economic growth is surprising to many people. With live telecasting of games, daily coverage on television news and in the sports sections of newspapers, professional sports play a huge role in U.S. culture. Yet sports teams are small businesses. Yearly average team revenues in 1999 are around $55 million in the NHL, $75 million in the NBA, $85 million in MLB and $100 million in the NFL. For a medium-sized city like St. Louis, the baseball team accounts for less than 0.3 percent of local economic activity; for a large city like New York, a baseball team contributes less than 0.03 percent of economic output. Sports teams typically employ between 70 and 130 people in their front offices. Beyond this, they hire approximately 1000-1500 day-of-game personnel who work in unskilled, low wage, temporary, part-time jobs. An NFL team is assured of playing 10 home games a year (including preseason games). At four hours of work per game, an NFL team provides day-of-game employment for the equivalent of 20 to 30 full-time, year-round jobs. As we shall see, however, it is problematic to attribute even these jobs to the sports team. Of course, the controversy about the economic impact of professional sports teams on their local economy is not just about the teams themselves, but also about how specific local restaurants, hotels, and other businesses might be affected. However, even if one assumes, optimistically, that on average people spend as much outside the sports facility as they do inside, the economic impact of sports teams in proportion to a typical metropolitan economy is diminutive. Apart from their relatively small size, there are three key reasons why professional sports teams do not promote economic development: the substitution effect; extensive leakages; and the likely negative effect on local government budgets. The analysis of these three effects that follows describes the situation when a team or a facility is new to an area. Of course, in many cases, the choice is whether or not to build a facility for a team that is already there. In such a case the incremental consumer surplus, external benefits or new spending will be considerably less. From the city's perspective, however, the opportunity cost of not building a facility with public funds may be perceived to be the loss of the team and all of its attendant benefits.

-------------------------------------------------Question

1. . The authors discuss the role of leakages in determining the impact of sports teams on the local economy. What are they talking about? Be specific so as to convince me that you read the article carefully

raspberryarmadillo231

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA*

Steven, a junior at Northeast State, just started working part-time at a local fast food restaurant chain. Although not his dream job, it paid for tuition and books, and the restaurant gave him the flexible schedule he needed for school. After a few months, Steven found he got along well with all of his coworkers, but it was apparent they did not respect the company or the management. The employees made fun of their bosses and treated the work area like a playground. In some respects, Steven thought it was a fun environment to work in, especially after hours when management was gone for the day. They played their music loudly, laughed, and talked with one another during the down times instead of cleaning up their work areas like they were supposed to. Despite the fact there were ethical policies telling employees how they were expected to act in the workplace, these policies never seemed to be enforced. One day, while working with his coworker Julie on the food assembly table, Steven saw Julie accidentally drop a meat patty on the floor. Without so much as a flinch, she bent down, picked up the patty, stuck it back on the bun, and wrapped it up. It happened so fast that Steven wasnât even sure he had seen rightâespecially since Julie had done it so casually. Steven watched in dismay as another worker took the hamburger out to the customer. Over the next few weeks, Steven saw others, including the shift supervisor, do the same thing with burgers and other products. Once, an entire cheeseburger hit the greasy floor, was picked up, and was taken to the customer. This time the customer complained the burger tasted funny and sent it back. Steven noticed other unsanitary practices such as employees not washing their hands between handling meat and vegetables and not washing utensils between uses. Obviously, such practices were against company policies and, if reported, the supervisors in charge could get in trouble and the restaurant would face investigations from the health department. However, there was ample opportunity for things like this to occur. There was no one watching them, and the shift supervisor also engaged in these activities. Steven felt it was the companyâs responsibility to hire good people, so they were to blame if these things happened. One day, Steven approached Julie and asked, âWhy do so many people here serve food that has fallen on the floor to customers?â Julie thought about it briefly as though she had never considered it before and replied, âI guess itâs because it would take too much time to get another beef patty out of the freezer, cook it, and serve it to the customer. This is a fast food restaurant, after all, and Iâm not interested in hearing customers complain about the time it takes for them to get their food. Besides, the restaurants with the fastest service get a bonus from corporate headquarters. Last year the supervisors rewarded us with some extra money for doing our jobs so quickly.â Steven was somewhat taken aback by the honest reply and asked, âWouldnât you be disgusted if you were served dirty food at a restaurant?â This time Julieâs response was quick. She said, âWhat I donât know wonât hurt me.â She walked off. Several weeks went by and the same practices continued. Steven became more and more concerned about the consequences that could happen in an environment so laid back and unconcerned about safety and health. It seemed like the more time that passed, the worse everyoneâs attitude became. One day, at the beginning of his shift, Steven noticed the walk-in freezer had been left open. As he went to shut the door, he discovered a smell of rotten meat. It almost made him vomit. âHow could this happen?â he wondered. He threw away the rotten meat without asking anyone because he was afraid of what the answer might be. After Steven threw out the spoiled meat, he began to wonder how the culture of the restaurant got to the point of supporting such practices. He realized the seemingly minor unsanitary practices allowed major issues to arise that could possibly hurt someone. Steven felt he should say or do something, but to whom? He sat down and pondered what he should do.

QUESTIONS | EXERCISES

1. Describe the nature of the organizational culture in the restaurant. What kind of opportunities are there for unethical behavior to occur? Are there any opportunities for ethical behavior?

2. What are some of the incentives employees might have to engage in this type of behavior?

3. If the organizational culture of the restaurant does not change, what are some likely outcomes and consequences?

Weekly leaderboard

Home

Homework Help 3,900,000

Economics 400,000

Unlock all answers

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related questions

Related Documents

ECO 1104 Lecture 3: ECO1104 - Chapter 3

ECO339H1 Chapter Notes - Chapter 2: Underemployment, Straight Time, Discouraged Worker

ECON 262 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Benevolent Dictatorship, Comparative Advantage, Utility

Weekly leaderboard