Need help with my Economics question – I’m studying for my class.

this is the first discussion (chapter 4).

Please respond to the following prompt:

In chapter 4 we learn about price floors and price ceilings. In the labor market, the minimum wage is a price floor. Like every price floor, the minimum wage causes a surplus. A surplus in the labor market is called “unemployment”. Those who are unemployed as a result of the minimum wage are represented on the supply curve (workers are sellers in the labor market) just to the left of the equilibrium quantity. Because of the price ceiling, this equilibrium is never reached…

Like any price floor, the minimum wage benefits the sellers in the market (the workers in this case). This can be seen as increased producer’s surplus. The price floor is bad for the employers because they are required to pay a higher price for labor. Higher labor costs are then passed on to customers.

So it seems that there are some significant trade-offs associated with our minimum wage laws. Basically we are trading efficiency (losing surplus/ creating dead weight loss) for equity (higher wages for the working poor.) We know that optimal decisions are made at the margin (from chapter 1), so let’s do some marginal analysis:

Marginal Benefit of Minimum Wage Laws:

• Low skilled workers get paid more than they otherwise would.

Marginal Costs of Minimum Wage Laws:

• Additional unemployment is created because employers hire fewer people (due to increased labor costs.)
• Consumers pay higher prices than they otherwise would (due to increased labor costs.)
• Firm owners are clearly worse-off.

So, is it worth it? Should we have minimum wage laws? Please take a position on the issue and support it with internet research (post a link to at least one article or website that passes the (Links to an external site.)CRAAP Test (Links to an external site.)). Then, please respond to the position of at least two classmates, and use research evidence to try to convince the individual (and the class) that you are correct.

This is the second discussion (chapter 8).

Please reflect on what you did for this class prior to taking the midterm, and answer these questions:

• A) Have you given your best effort to master the material?
• B) If not, what are you going to change to step it up for the next exam? If you did give it your best effort, do you need to make any adjustments to the activities in which you applied your efforts?

Now please watch this TED Talk by Angela Duckworth, (Links to an external site.)and answer these questions:

• C) What did you think of what Ms. Duckworth had to say?
• D) Do you believe that your brain can actually change shape and respond as you apply effort and try to learn? It is true, and it means that almost any academic setbacks you experience are just temporary, and that you can overcome your challenges with grit.

Third discussion (chapter 9)

Please read the following prompt and post your response:

Unemployment can be a major social problem. In early 2019 the unemployment rate in Bosnia was 34%.

By comparison, in 1933, the worst year of the great depression, the unemployment rate in the United States was 24.75%.

Unemployment increases when the amount of work that needs to be done in an economy decreases. Businesses notice this first when they get fewer orders for goods and services. When firms have less work to do, they need fewer workers, and they typically layoff some of their employees. However, firing workers is not the only option; a firm could just trim everyone’s hours instead.

For example, imagine a firm needs 20% fewer labor hours because a recession has decreased the demand for their product. The firm could achieve this 20% reduction by laying off 20% of its workforce, or it could achieve this by keeping everyone employed, but reducing everyone’s hours by 20%.

From the business owners’ perspective, one point in favor of the “terminating jobs” approach is that, although recessions are bad for business, when businesses trim their work force, typically the least productive workers get laid off first, and often firms emerge from recessions stronger for having shed workers who shirk their duties. Even today, following the recession of 2008, unemployment remains high but much of Corporate America is as profitable as ever.

From the employees’ perspective, there are some tradeoffs here. If the employer lays off 20% of the workers, those who remain may feel insecure about the stability of their job, although they maintain their full pay. On the other hand, if the employer doesn’t lay anyone off, and instead cuts everyone’s hours by 20%, all employees remain employed, but earn less money.

1. Which type of firm would you rather work for?One who lays people off, or one that cuts everyone’s hours?Why?Think about the tradeoffs involved.Please use marginal analysis (ref. chapter 1) in your reasoning, and back up any claims you make with some documentation.
2. If a law was passed that required all firms to cut hours instead of lay people off, so that everybody was guaranteed a job and only hours worked fluctuated (instead of experiencing joblessness), what do you think the economic consequences would be? Specifically:;
   1. Do you have any thoughts on how (and why) this might affect the duration and severity of recessions? This is a topic we’ll cover in coming chapters.
   2. What do you think the long-term implications on the health of the economy would be? Think about what effect this policy would have on workers’ effort level, and therefore productivity over time.
   3. Finally, would this sort of policy cause any other social problems or issues?

Please use economic reasoning in your response, and include a link to a website or article that passes the CRAAP Test (Links to an external site.) as evidence to support your position. After you respond to the initial prompt, please respond to the post of at least one classmate, and try to convince the individual (and the class) that your position is reasonable.

fourth discussion. (chapter 16)

In chapter 16 we learned about fiscal policy –the federal government’s tool kit for addressing business cycle fluctuations. In chapter 12 we learned that business cycle fluctuations are caused by changes in aggregate expenditure. One implication of this idea is that if we are in a recession, it is because total spending has decreased. Therefore, if we want to get out of a recession, total spending needs to increase. Chapter 16 offers two ways to stimulate total spending –through tax cuts or increases in government spending.

Typically, Republicans favor tax cuts, while democrats favor increases in government spending. There are economic rationales for both positions. Tax cuts put money into the pockets of consumers, who are better than the government at determining how resources should be allocated –this promotes “allocative efficiency” (from chapter 1). On the other hand, tax cuts have a lower multiplier effect than increases in government spending. This means that we get more economic stimulus from a given dollar value of government spending than the same dollar value in tax cuts.

The tradeoff here is between more efficiency (with tax cuts) vs. more economic stimulus (with government spending). Differences of opinion on this matter are cause for heated political debate and overblown political rhetoric.

So what do you think? Do you prefer economic stimulus from tax cuts or increases in government expenditure? Please post a response about the issue and support it with economic reasoning, information you learned from reading the chapter material, and with internet research (post a link to at least one article or website that passes the CRAAP Test (Links to an external site.)). Then, please respond to the position of at least one classmate, and use research evidence to try to convince the individual (and the class) that you are correct. Your response can be to someone who shares your view, but it will probably be more fun to debate someone on the other side of the issue.