1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
mamaluj [8]
3 years ago
14

Which of the following statements are true? Check all that apply. In this labor market, a minimum wage of $9.00 is binding. In t

he absence of price controls, a shortage puts upward pressure on wages until they rise to the equilibrium. If the minimum wage is set at $12.50, the market will not reach equilibrium. Binding minimum wages cause frictional unemployment.

Business
1 answer:
soldier1979 [14.2K]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

<em>1.  In this labor market, a minimum wage of $9.00 is binding : </em><em>FALSE</em>

<em>2. In the absence of price controls, a shortage puts upward pressure on wages until they rise to the equilibrium : </em><em>TRUE</em>

<em>3. If the minimum wage is set at $12.50, the market will not reach equilibrium : </em><em>TRUE</em>

<em>4. Binding minimum wages cause frictional unemployment : </em><em>FALSE</em>

Explanation:

<em><u>Question has been attached here</u></em>

Unemployment is the term used to define those who are willing and are actively seeking work but cannot find any. A minimum wage is a price control, in the form of a price floor imposed by government legislation in order to protect laborers from low wages. Paying anything below the minimum wage is against the law.

<em>1. In this labor market, a minimum wage of $9.00 is binding : </em><em>FALSE</em>

A minimum wage is binding only if it is set above the equilibrium price. In this scenario, the equilibrium price is at $12. Hence, $9 is not binding since a shortage of labor would gradually raise the price to the equilibrium.

<em>2. In the absence of price controls, a shortage puts upward pressure on wages until they rise to the equilibrium : </em><em>TRUE</em>

When there is a shortage in the market, it means that the quantity supplied is higher than the quantity demanded. With any particular commodity such as bread or rice, a shortage creates a rise in price. Just as that, a shortage of workers creates an upward pressure on the price (wage). Since there are no price ceilings, market will reach equilibrium.

<em>3. If the minimum wage is set at $12.50, the market will not reach equilibrium : </em><em>TRUE</em>

As shown in the diagram, the market equilibrium is $12. If the minimum wage was $12.50, there would be a surplus of labor (quantity supplied is higher than quantity demanded). Naturally, this may cause a downward pressure on wages until it reaches $12. However, when a minimum wage is imposed at $12.50, it cannot fall below that level. Thus, the market will not reach the equilibrium.

<em>4. Binding minimum wages cause frictional unemployment : </em><em>FALSE</em>

Frictional unemployment is a type of unemployment that occurs when workers are temporarily unemployed while switching between jobs. It is normal and occurs even in the healthiest of economies. A binding minimum wage is more likely to cause structural unemployment. This occurs when there is a mismatch between the skills of the labor force and the skills expected to be possessed by employers to do a particular job. Hence, even if jobs are available, the laborers are not suited to do them and thus are unemployed.

You might be interested in
The periodic expense created by allocating the cost of plant and equipment to the periods in which they are used, representing t
Alex787 [66]

Answer:

Option B Depreciation expense

Explanation:

The allocation of cost of the plant and equipment for the period being used is the concept of depreciation and is a period cost because when the asset is purchased its value decreases gradually with time which means some of the machinery value would be deminish during the year depending upon the technological factors, life of the equipment, etc. So the period cost will arise regardless of that we either use the asset or not which is the definition of period cost which in this case is depreciation cost and the allocation of cost of plant and equipment over its useful life is also depreciation cost.

8 0
3 years ago
The economic analysis of minimum wage involves both normative and positive analysis. Consider the following consequences of a mi
ICE Princess25 [194]

<u>Explanation:</u>

First, remember that the difference between <em>normative and positive economic analysis</em> is that;

Normative analysis take a somewhat neutral view by stating how the world should be. While

The Positive analysis states the facts. That is, it describes the world as it is.

<u> Thus, a </u><u>Normative analysis</u><u> of the consequence of minimum​ wage would be the following statements:</u>

c. In some cities such as San Francisco and New​ York, it would be impossible for low−skilled workers to live comfortably in the city without minimum wage laws.

d. The gains to winners of a minimum wage law should be valued more highly than the losses to losers because the latter primarily comprises businesses.

<u>And a </u><u>Positive analysis</u><u> of the consequence of minimum​ wage would be the following statements:</u>

a. The minimum wage law causes unemployment.

b. A minimum wage law benefits some groups and hurts others.

4 0
3 years ago
What was Thomas Malthus’s theory of population growth?
Rufina [12.5K]

Answer:

A population would grow faster than its ability to feed itself.

Explanation:

Thomas Malthus' theory, in my personal beliefs, is remarkably accurate and quite rational. He argued that if one were to have a country/population left unchecked, as in without any form of administration, government, or central authority to balance it, that a population would thus outgrow its resources and thus result in overpopulation and a lack of necessities... something that may, perhaps, lead to eventual extinction.

This is fairly factual when you think of the contemporary age. The earth was previously believed to have a carrying capacity of about 2-40 billion people, an argument that eventually centered on around 7 billion. Today, the earth's maximum carrying capacity is generally percieved to be about 9 billion people. In this age, we currently are nearing 8 billion.

This. Is. An. Issue.

A plethora of earth's resources that life itself depends on is LIMITED. Our freshwater reserves are limited. The amount of animals on this planet, a source of food, is <em>also </em>limited. The amount of plants on this planet, significant sources of energy, food, oxygen, and all sorts of natural processes that keep everything alive, are, unfortunately, limited.

This demands that humans figure a way to require less of these precious resources, fast. By the year of 2150, we'll likely have surpassed our carrying capacity.

For the issue of food, there are options. The primary issue is that humans are omnivores, as in, we love both plants AND animals... in our stomach's, of course. A prime example is myself! Personally, I couldn't live without beef, but I <em>definitely </em>couldn't or wouldn't want to survive without spinach and broccoli, because they are absolutely delicious.

However, despite humans being omnivores, we stubbornly refuse to eat our veggies. . . meaning a mass majority of us prefer to eat meat. We breed our animals to have offspring, giving us more meat. We generically enhance or even create our meat. We love meat.

The issue being that meat is a terrible source of energy. Remember, energy comes from sources of life itself, like the sun! PLANTS take the mass majority of this energy in, not animals. Animals EAT the plants, to where as much as 80% of that initial energy source is lost, disappearing into nothing, and meaning only roughly 20% is absorbed into the animal upon eating the said plant. Then, and only then, HUMANS come to eat the animal, in which 80% of that initial 20% is also lost between these stages.

As you can see, humans end up with barely any amount of this vital energy, simply because we love meat. We feed the plants to the animals to keep them healthy so WE can then eat the said animals, thus resulting in a HUGE loss of energy. We use our land for pastures. We give other resources (like water) to the animals, again, so we can eventually consume them.

The earth is going to run out of resources at one point or another, but our current consumption habits will likely hasten this process as far as freshwater and food.

Ofc, it shouldn't need to be said that if we were ALL to switch to primarily plant-only consumption, we'd probably be set. Getting rid of all our pastures and replacing them with massive farms would give is a surplus of plants, which are remarkably better sources of energy and will thus be able to sustain humans much, much longer. We won't have to worry as much about starving.

Then again, you must ALSO worry about the fragility of plants. They can easily be detroyed by natural disastors and are dependant upon environmental conditions such as weather temperature, climate, and soil. These factors are very limiting, but then you must additionally remember the amount of care they require, as well as they are extremely vunerable to mass destruction (like droughts, burning, flooding, etc., which can wipe out a LOT at once).

Obviously it's a give-or-take thing.

Malthus said it right, three hundred years ago.

I get the length of this post was probably uneccesary but you asked a very good question that gave me an excuse to cover something in-depth.

I am inevitable.

~Troy

3 0
3 years ago
A company earned $7,605 in net income for October. Its net sales for October were $19,500. Its profit margin is:
vivado [14]

Answer: 39%

Explanation:

From the question, we are informed that company earned $7,605 in net income for October and that its net sales for October were $19,500.

To calculate its profit margin, we have to divide the net income by the net sales. This will be:

= 7605/19500

= 0.39

= 39%

3 0
3 years ago
Complete the statements and then calculate the change in consumption. The consumption function shows the relationship between co
White raven [17]

Answer:

Disposible income.

Marginal propensity to consume.

Disposible income, marginal propensity to consume.

The consumption will increase by  $800

Explanation:

The consumption function shows the relationship between consumption spending and disposible income.

The slope of the consumption function is the marginal propensity to consume.

Changes in consumption can be predicted by multiplying the change in disposible income by the marginal propensity to consume.

Given:  MPC = 0.80

           Disposible income increases by $1,000

consumption increase =  0.80*$1000

                                     = $800

Therefore, The consumption will increase by  $800.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Sudoku Company issues 17,000 shares of $8 par value common stock in exchange for land and a building. The land is valued at $230
    12·1 answer
  • Suppose that nominal gdp is $1,000 in 2009 and $1,500 in 2010. if the overall price level _____ between 2009 and 2010, we could
    13·1 answer
  • Alto Company issued 7% preferred stock with a $100 par value. This means that: Multiple Choice Only 7% of the total paid-in capi
    6·1 answer
  • Please complete the following sentence from our reading: This brings us to the second reason mass media models are persuasive: T
    7·1 answer
  • Hewitt and Patel are partners, sharing gains and losses equally. They decide to terminate their partnership. Prior to realizatio
    11·1 answer
  • At carbon fine inc., a maker of premium art pencils, the human resource department is evaluating its pay structure. a compensati
    9·1 answer
  • When customers join the Daily Needs Reward Zone, they receive one point on every purchase they make at Daily Needs stores and Da
    11·1 answer
  • Fluno Corporation has 1 million shares outstanding at the end of fiscal 2005. Its stock is trading at $15 per share. It issued $
    9·1 answer
  • doug purchased a new factory building on january 15 2001 for 400,000. on march 1 2020 the building was sold. determine the cost
    6·1 answer
  • How do I calculate current ratio
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!