LABRST 2H03 Chapter Notes - Chapter 13: Marginal Revenue Productivity Theory Of Wages, Professional Sports, Complementary Good

23 views4 pages

sarm11

28 Apr 2019

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Labour market in professional sports: rosen and sanderson. Important elements of supply and demand are observable in professional athletes. The alleged impact that high salaries have on the ticket prices and or the public financing of new facilities that are allegedly needed to generate sufficient revenues to pay huge salaries. Sceptics address the idea of paying athletes high salaries when there are public needs for education, health care, poverty. The demand for labour is derived from the demand for the ultimate goods and services that labour is used to produce. Since customers are willing to pay more for higher quality athletic competition, the demand for players services depends on their marginal contribution to product quality. Personal contributions in sports are easy to measure and can be measured from past data. Professional sport is one of the few empirical cases where the marginal product of a player can be directly assessed.

Related Questions

1. In a market economy, the high salaries of some star baseball players such as Adrian Gonzalez, are determined by

		Team owners, based on the total number of star athletes they plan to hire.
	B	advertising companies, based on what they are willing to pay to advertise their products at baseball games.
	C	the interaction of the demand for star athletes and the supply of star athletes.
	D	consumers, based on their willingness to watch baseball games.

2. Demand in factor markets differs from demand in product markets in that

	A	the demand for a factor of production is difficult to determine.
B		the demand for a factor of production is influenced by workers' productivity and by the producers' expected sales revenues, not by tastes and preferences of consumers.
C		demand for a factor of production is based on the tastes and preferences of firms.
D		demand for a factor of production is based on the tastes and preferences of resource owners.

3. The demand for labor is described as a derived demand because

A		it is derived by workers seeking to earn income to fund the consumption of goods and services.
B		it is derived by producers seeking to make profits by starting new businesses.
C		it is derived from the demand for products that use labor in the production process.
D		it is derived from government institutions that rely on labor markets for the purpose of raising tax revenue.

4. Which of the following is not an example of a derived demand?

A		Several of the animated films released between 1999 and 2001 failed to earn a profit, which caused some companies to stop making these films, thereby decreasing the demand for animators.
B		Seth Bullock, a personal injury attorney, complains that he is earning far less now than a few years ago largely because personal injury cases have been undercut by state laws limiting class-action suits and payouts on damages.
C		Millicent Manning, the owner of a furniture store, is concerned that her sales have fallen for the past six months. She attributes this to the downturn in the real estate market.
D		As advancements in medical technology increase the safety and success of laser eye surgery, the demand for opticians has decreased.

5. Marginal revenue product for a perfectly competitive seller is equal to

A		the output price multiplied by the total product of labor.
B		the output price multiplied by the number of workers hired.
C		the change in total revenue that results from hiring another worker.
D		the marginal cost of production.

6. What is the difference between labor's marginal product and marginal revenue product?

A		The marginal product of labor is the increase in output as a result of hiring an additional worker while the marginal revenue product of labor is the increase in profit as a result of hiring an additional worker.
B		The marginal revenue product of labor is the dollar value of hiring an additional worker while the marginal product of labor is the increase in the firm's physical output as a result of hiring an additional worker.
C		The marginal product of labor is the additional labor's contribution to the firm's total output while the marginal revenue product is the additional labor's contribution to the firm's total sales revenue.
D		Labor's marginal product is a measure of labor's productivity while labor's marginal revenue product is a measure of labor's ability to sell the firm's products.

7. What is the difference between a firm's marginal revenue and its marginal revenue product?

A		Marginal revenue is the change in sales revenue from selling one more unit of output while marginal revenue product is the profit earned from hiring one more worker.
B		Marginal revenue is the change in sales revenue from selling one more unit of output while marginal revenue product is the change in total revenue from hiring one more worker.
C		Marginal revenue is the increase in revenue when a firm raises its output price while marginal revenue product is the increase in the marginal product when a firm hires an additional worker.
D		There is no difference between the two terms.

coffeecat509

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

LABRST 2H03 Chapter Notes - Chapter 13: Marginal Revenue Productivity Theory Of Wages, Professional Sports, Complementary Good

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

LABRST 2H03 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Marginal Revenue Productivity Theory Of Wages, Marginal Revenue, Marginal Product

LABR 2P90 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Ableism, No Alternative, Intersectionality

CMN 140 Midterm: CMN 140 - Exam 2 study Guide

Related Questions