ECON 2D03 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Gini Coefficient, Lorenz Curve, Basicneeds

76 views2 pages

magentamanatee678

7 Jan 2014

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

If a part of a statement is false, then the whole statement is false. Circle a if the statement is true (t) and circle b if the statement is false (f). Prevalence, a measure of disease burden, is a count of the number of people with the disease in a given population at a specific point in time. Incidence pertains to the number of people who acquire the disease during a given interval of time, such as a year. Usually presented as a rate, incidence is a direct measure of disease risk higher incidence implies higher risk. If gini coefficient is zero, it implies high concentration of economy"s income in high income people. If the lorenz curve in canada is a diagonal line, it implies high degree of income-inequality in canada. Theil"s index of inequality and atkinson"s inequality measure the variance of income around the means.

Related Questions

As the U.S. Surgeon General warns on each pack of cigarettes, smoking can be hazardous to your health. Researchers estimate that smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year10 times the fatalities from traffic accidents. Smoking is the overwhelming cause of lung cancer, which is the top cancer killer among women. Four of five people with lung cancer die within three years. Smoking is also the leading cause of heart disease, emphysema, and stroke.

Thus, smoking imposes major health and economic costs. Policymakers try to reduce these costs by discouraging smoking, especially among young people. About one in four U.S. high school students were smokers in 2005, the same rate as in 2003. Each day, about 3,000 U.S. teens under 18 become regular smokers. Worldwide, an estimated 100,000 teens become regular smokers each day.

One way to reduce youth smoking is to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors. A second way is to raise the price through higher cigarette taxes. The amount by which a given price hike reduces teen smoking depends on the price elasticity of demand. This elasticity is higher for teens than for adults. Why are teenagers more sensitive to price changes than adults?

First, recall that one factor affecting elasticity is the importance of the item in the consumer's budget. Because teen income is relatively low, the share spent on cigarettes usually exceeds the share spent by adult smokers.

Second, peer pressure shapes a young person's decision to smoke more than an adult's decision to continue smoking (if anything, adults face negative peer pressure for smoking). Thus, the effect of a higher price gets magnified among young smokers because that higher price also reduces smoking by peers. With fewer peers smoking, teens face less pressure to smoke.

And, third, young people not yet addicted to nicotine are more sensitive to price increases than are adult smokers, who are more likely to be already hooked.

The experience from other countries supports the effectiveness of higher cigarette taxes in reducing teen smoking. For example, a large tax increase on cigarettes in Canada cut youth smoking by two-thirds. Another way to reduce smoking is to change consumer tastes through health warnings on packages. In Canada, these warnings include photos showing how smoking can affect the brain, teeth, and gums, and a wilted cigarette depicts male impotence.

In Australia, labels show gangrenous limbs, underweight babies, cancerous mouths, and blind eyes. Belgium adds corpses to the picture.

In California, a combination of higher cigarette taxes and an ambitious awareness program contributed to a 5 per cent decline in lung cancer among women, even as it rose 13 per cent in the rest of the country. (As of 2007, state taxes varied from a low of 7 cents per pack in South Carolina to a high of $2.58 in New Jersey.)

More generally, the message about the dangers of smoking along with the higher cost of cigarettes has affected over time. Only about 20 per cent of American adults now smoke, down from more than half in the 1960s.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs society $7.18 in higher health care costs and lost worker productivity. The added cost exceeds $150 billion a year, which works out to be about $3,400 per smoker per year.

What is the best way to prevent and reduce smoking? Briefly discuss.

limelizard543

What is the best way to prevent and reduce smoking? Briefly discuss.

Please read the article below to have a general idea about the topic.

Case Study: Deterring Young Smokers

As the U.S. Surgeon General warns on each pack of cigarettes, smoking can be hazardous to your health. Researchers estimate that smoking kills 440,000 Americans a year, 10 times the fatalities from traffic accidents. Smoking is the overwhelming cause of lung cancer, which is the top cancer killer among women. Four of five people with lung cancer die within three years. Smoking is also the leading cause of heart disease, emphysema, and stroke.

And, third, young people not yet addicted to nicotine are more sensitive to price increases than are adult smokers, who are more likely to be already hooked.

In Australia, labels show gangrenous limbs, underweight babies, cancerous mouths, and blind eyes. Belgium adds corpses to the picture.

In California, a combination of higher cigarette taxes and an ambitious awareness program contributed to a 5 percent decline in lung cancer among women, even as it rose 13 percent in the rest of the country. (As of 2007, state taxes varied from a low of 7 cents per pack in South Carolina to a high of $2.58 in New Jersey.)

More generally, the message about the dangers of smoking along with the higher cost of cigarettes has had an effect over time. Only about 20 percent of American adults now smoke, down from more than half in the 1960s.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States costs society $7.18 in higher health care costs and in lost worker productivity. The added cost exceeds $150 billion a year, which works out to be about $3,400 per smoker per year.

SOURCES

Hutchinson, Smoke Signals: Adolescent Smoking and School Continuation, NBER Working Paper 12462, (August 2006); and Hana Ross and Frank Chaloupka, The Effects of Public Policies and Prices on Youth Smoking, : John Tauras, An Empirical Analysis of Adult Cigarette Demand, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Summer 2005): pp. 361375

pinkmallard187

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 âcertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.â This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an âunalienableâ 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 âHappiness and Public Policy.â 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: âHow satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?â 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: âThe 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.â 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 oneâs 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, âRating Countries for the Happiness Factor,â Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, âIncome, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,â Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and âWhere Money Seems to Talk,â Economist, 12 July 200

ECON 2D03 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Gini Coefficient, Lorenz Curve, Basicneeds

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON 2D03 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Production Function, Capital Intensity, Demand Curve

ECON 2D03 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Factors Of Production, Production Function, High Tech

ECON 2D03 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Infant Mortality, Demand Curve, Social Cost

Related Questions