Provided here for your perusal is a very interesting chart courtesy of The New York Times, showing the wage gap between men and women at a variety of jobs. (On the left hand side of the page you will see color-coded occupations; click on one to get more information on the jobs within that category).
Provided here for your ponderment is an article from The Economist looking at the issue of labor force participation by women in a variety of countries. Consider these two sources, and answer the questions below.
- Describe the history of labor force participation by women. Historically, how involved have they been in the labor force? In what sorts of jobs?
- How has the gap closed?
- What economic benefits and costs have accrued as a result of more women in the workforce.
- Carefully examine the chart on the Times website. Using your knowledge of MRP and derived demand, could there be any economic justification for the wage gap? Explain why or why not.
- Note: this can quickly become a very contentious, political, and decidedly uneconomic discussion if we are not careful. For this particular question, I'm asking you to use your knowledge of derived demand to answer the question, not your knowledge of ethics, business, or anything else
Your first post on this issue is due by midnight on Saturday, December 3rd. Your second post will be due by midnight on Sunday, December 11th.
Addendum: For your second post, I'd like you to consider the productivity improvements on the continent of Africa. This article summarizes one of the major influences on African productivity: cell phones. After reading the article, consider these questions:
Addendum: For your second post, I'd like you to consider the productivity improvements on the continent of Africa. This article summarizes one of the major influences on African productivity: cell phones. After reading the article, consider these questions:
- Explain the improvements to the economy since cell phones became popular.
- Using your understanding of marginal revenue product and derived demand, explain how increased cell phone penetration throughout the continent will help improve economic conditions.
- How might cell phones be used to effectively improve productivity in Africa? In particular, keep in mind that many in Africa are still farmers...it's easy to see how a cell phone would help a banker, but how does it help a farmer?
This post is due by midnight on Sunday, December 11th.
52 comments:
Historically, women have not been a major part of the workforce. If they did have a job, it was usually something menial like a factory worker, a maid, or a secretary. In recent years, the number of women who seek employment has risen greatly, and these women have been able to pursue all sorts of careers. Due to anti-discrimination laws, the wage gap between men and women has been steadily decreasing. Also, as more and more of the population has grown up during times when their mothers did have a job, it has become more acceptable for women to hold a variety of positions. People are beginning to realize that in most cases men and women are perfectly capable of doing equal work and deserve equal pay. However, one of the economic costs of women entering the workforce is the higher number of workers supplying labor. This increase will cause a decrease in wages, theoretically, for all workers. Despite this overall drop in wages, without women workers the country's GDP would not be nearly as high, as stated in the article. It also allows for companies to receive the input of their largest group of consumers in the production of their goods. Based on MRP and derived demand, there could be a justification for women earning less if they chose to work in fields where their products had lower demand. Men and women tend to choose different fields of work and so their respective wages could be influenced by the demand for their product or service.
Historically, women and labor never went together. For a very long time, women were expected to to stay at home and their job was to be wives and mothers. Then, once they did break into the actual field of labor, they were all secretaries, laundresses, or some other sort of low paying, second class job. They never got the same employment opportunities as men. That gap has collapsed because women realized, hey, we can do the same jobs as men can do, and we can probably do them better. Mainly changed social-norms and laws preventing the discrimination of women have helped them get closer to closing the wadge gap. Women a providing the country with economic benefit because, as stated in the article, it is estimated that with women, the nations GDP is about 25% higher than it would be without them. However, the cost is, having women applying for the same positions as men causes a higher supply of labor, which in turn drives wadges down. There is economic justification for giving women lower wadges, because if they do, then women will try to work in different fields than men (secretaries and whatnot like they did before), which would put the wadges back at a higher rate. However, in my personal opinion, I believe that any women can do any job just as well as any man.
Women were initially restricted to work inside of the home. They were responsible of taking care of the children, cleaning the house, preparing food, making clothes, and other chores. Women were not very involved in the labor force. If a woman was, it was most likely because she was young and did not have a partner. They had jobs such as domestic servants or factory workers.
Women have become more educated since then. They obtain relatively the same education as men. Women have become confident and feel the need to be able to support themselves or contribute to their families. Companies are also trying to diversify their workforce by adding more women into it.
Since apparently females are paid less, companies are earning more money. Women tend to be more personable and customers feel that they can relax around female workers. There is also more money spent since more people have jobs. With the addition of female workers, there is more competition for jobs.
Assuming that men obtained the job first, MRP and derived demand could be economic based justification for the wage gap. Before women started working for companies, they were most likely making decent profit. So, when women came into the workforce, the additional revenue that they brought in for the company was not as substantial as the workers hired before her. Derived demand could show that maybe it is harder to see how women affect demand. Women may have a different range of skills than men do that are harder to find a value for.
The number of women in the workforce and being educated is increasing at a fast rate. In the generations before us, women mainly were housewives and their role was to take care of the family. The women that had jobs were mainly low-skilled and worked as secretaries or factory workers. Then, women began to go to college and this began to change. Women then became competitive with men for highly skilled jobs. The increased number of women in the workforce had a good effect on the economy. As more women could work, employers had more to choose from. Also, the government had more incomes to tax. Also, the GDP is now 25% higher than it would have been without women. It seems that the main reason for the difference in pay of men and women is job choice. The Times website says that women take more non-profit positions, so they make less. Also, the often choose lesser paying jobs, perhaps if they like them more, and work less hours. But, this gap continues to close because of laws and court cases, and the enforcement of each. So, I don't think there is any economic justification because the demand and supply of women in the workforce is very close to that of men.
Historically women have worked in mainly factories and things of that nature. The hard labor that not many have the will to do. They were not involved in politics or any high up positions in the labor force. They were very involved however in the hard, low-tier labor. They had jobs as domestic servants and as previously stated, in factories. Beginning in the 1930s more women finished high school and were studying at college, allowing them to get jobs in offices and things of that nature. Later, the birth control pill was brought about which allowed women to work and put children to the side for a short time. Divorce became more common which pushed women to have their own income as well. Women began to realize that they would need to take their education more seriously. By 1980 the number of women graduating from college just about equaled that of men and the gap was for the most part closed. The entering of more women in the work force allowed for more employment flexibility and diversity. Also, this caused more people with incomes that are spending money, paying taxes, and therefore helping the economy to thrive. There could be a justification of the women being in work with less demand than men are. This would cause the need for their work and labor to go down and with that their wages.
Women in the workforce has been a process throughout history. Initially jobs for women were mostly for young, single, and uneducated women and entailed only working in factories or as domestic servants. As more young women began to get educated, more got jobs. In the 1950s in particular, a large number or married women took jobs. These jobs included work as secretaries, teachers, nurses, and social workers and were often part-time. As the number or working moms increased, many young girls realized they could and would go to college, get a degree, and join the workforce themselves. This change in young women's mentality is what is closing the gap. Now more than half of college students are female. The gap however, is not completely closed. Under 60% of women are in the labor force compared to about 70% of men. But why? women have contributed much to the economy. It is estimated in the Economist article that America's GDFp is about 25% higher with women in the workforce than it would have been without them. A calculation of the GDP boost by closing the gender gap completely is 9%. There have also been studies that show that there is a correlation between a profit increase and a higher presence of women in senior jobs at a company. A cost of having these women in the workforce is that they greatly increase the total number of workers, making the job market more competitive. People were unhappy when the Irish came and took jobs because it caused a shift in demand for workers. The increase of number of women in the workforce is doing the same thing which could be driving everyone's salaries down. By thinking about derived demand and MRP, I understand from an economist's perspective that a pay gap is not discrimination, but simply because they got to the market later, they are creating less marginal product and due to the law of diminishing marginal returns, returning less to the economy. This would give them less derived demand and they would be worth less, hence the lower pay. I know this is not supposed to be political but being the raging Democrat and feminist that I am, I would like to say that I do not believe that women are worth less because they entered the market later, and we are just getting started on all of what we have to offer which hopefully will increase our derived demand someday.
Historically, women have not played a large role in skilled labor. They tended to stay at home, or work in unskilled labor. Now, however, women are beginning to play a bigger role in jobs that require more skill. In the article, they used the example of secretaries. In the past, people would assume that women were not lawyers, and were more likely to be secretaries. This has drastically changed over time. Many governments have been working to set quotas for the amount of women working in certain positions. Other organizations, such as the United Nations, are working to end the stereotypes of women in the workplace. They are attempting to end the discrimination of women.
Economically, an increase in women in the workforce leads to an increase in the supply of labor. This would allow firms to pay less for their workers. This would be a benefit for firms. Also, an increase in workers would lead to an increase in production, and therefore, and increase in profit. This is bad for the workers, because they can now get paid less for doing the same job. The increase in competition will result in lower wages overall.
There could be justification for women getting paid less than men based on the graph. Based on derived demand and the occupations chosen by men and women, men should receive higher wages. Men tend to choose the positions in science and business, for which there is a greater demand than services and sales. Also, if the MRP is greater when a man is doing the job, he should be paid a higher wage because he is producing more economic profit.
Women were never part of the work force until recently. Women would be expected to stay at home and take care of the family, cook, and clean. In the odd chance that a women even had a job it would be a low pay factory job. With the change in times also came a change in education. Women began to go to college and earn degrees. This opened up different opportunities for them. As a country we depend on a labor force and with the influx of new women the labor force increased. And like simple supply and demand the influx of supply will cause a decrease in the overall wage. Even though the wage would drop without the women in the women in the workforce the countries GDP would not be as high.
Based on the graph in the new york times you can say that is justifiable because the women may be entering into fields that have much less demand. The price gap between men and women is slowly closing because many people are beginning to see that women can do many of the jobs men can but I personally believe that women will always be making less then men just based on the line of work many women get into.
Historically women have held low paying, or unskilled positions in the work force. Examples include secretaries,teachers, nannies, or maids. The gap has closed because many women in "rich countries" have received a college education. National GDPs have increased as their respective labor forces have rapidly increased. Women have different factors that have to be considered when being hired. They have maternity leave and are usually less willing to work overtime than men; all of which make them less profitable to hire for the firm than men. Forcing the business owners to pay them less in order to earn profits from their labor women produce.
Historically, women have been a very minor part of the labor force. In the 1920s, they were mostly factory workers or were involved in other occupations which did not require much education.
The pay gap between men and women has narrowed significantly since the 1970s, down to about a difference of about 18%, but has recently hit a plateau and is not narrowing further.
Many countries have experienced economic benefits from women in the workforce because they have more workers and the unemployment rate decreases.
It can be said that the wage gap is justified because women generally choose different fields than men and choose lower-paying jobs, but at the same time, since the wage gap is narrowing, it doesn't make as much sense anymore.
Women werent always a big number of the labor force. Historically, men were the ones who composed most of the labor force to support their women. Historically, women didnt have high ranking jobs or even ones that payed as well as a mans. Historically many women had jobs in factories such as The Triangle Shirt factory. The gap has closed because more women now are seeking jobs and women are playing a bigger role in the familys icome. Also part is due to anti discrimintion laws. The econmic bennefits of having more women in the workforce is obviously a bigger pool of workers to choose from. The downside is because there are so many women who want to work their salaries will not be that high becasue there is a large supply of them. I suppose there could be a slight justification for the wage gap. Due to a large supply of women who want to work companies might be paying them less because of this. Part of this is due to history when men were thought of the ones holding the jobs and supporting their wives. But this no longer is the case women are seen equally contributing to their family but having a harder time getting the same pay as men.
Women werent always a big number of the labor force. Historically, men were the ones who composed most of the labor force to support their women. Historically, women didnt have high ranking jobs or even ones that payed as well as a mans. Historically many women had jobs in factories such as The Triangle Shirt factory. The gap has closed because more women now are seeking jobs and women are playing a bigger role in the familys icome. Also part is due to anti discrimintion laws. The econmic bennefits of having more women in the workforce is obviously a bigger pool of workers to choose from. The downside is because there are so many women who want to work their salaries will not be that high becasue there is a large supply of them. I suppose there could be a slight justification for the wage gap. Due to a large supply of women who want to work companies might be paying them less because of this. Part of this is due to history when men were thought of the ones holding the jobs and supporting their wives. But this no longer is the case women are seen equally contributing to their family but having a harder time getting the same pay as men.
Until the 1920s working women had jobs in factories or as domestic servants that required little education. From the 1930s onwards many more girls got jobs in offices. In the 1950s, large numbers of married women took up work as secretaries, teachers, nurses, and social workers. The invention of birth control made it possible for women to put a career first. By the 1980’s women has many of the same jobs they have today.
The gap has completely closed for students just out of college, but gradually women drop out of the labor market as time passes in their lives. They tend to be the ones who stay home to raise children.
It is estimated that America’s GDP is 15% higher than it would have been without women in the work force. The presence of women also gives employers more to choose from in terms of talent. However, the increase in workers has contributed to the high unemployment rate and thus the stalled economy.
A possible explanation for the lower wages of women could be that women have a lower derived demand than men. For example, a WNBA player makes less than an NBA player because her role on the team most likely generates less revenue than his. As explained in the article, women tend to drop out of the market. Hiring and paying a man a high wage could be a more solid investment for many employers because a man is more likely to work longer.
In the past, women were less educated than men. They did not work and most of the women stayed at home. So, in the past it was rare to see a woman in the work force. If they did have a job, they were mostly secretaries or maids. Currently, more women are becoming CEOs,lawyers, doctors, secretary of states, etc. Companies can pay women less money; which allows them to make more money. For example; men steriotypically can do/make more than women, however they can pay women less which makes the companies more money in profit. However, we should all know a woman can do anything a man can.
Until recently women were not really in the work force. Some women would have jobs, but those jobs were never important. The jobs they would be range from being a maid to doing factory work. Over the years the gap has closed due to companies getting initiatives and random women achieving when they were not supposed to. Economicaly companies have benefited from this because they historically do not pay women as much as men. There are no real costs besides a company might be tempted to hire more people but even then there is more of a pool or want to be employers that the average salery could drop. The article states that with women in the work force the countries GDP will go up. It also says that women are the biggest group of consumers so why not hire them. According to the MPR and derived demand woman can be paid less, but this is only because woman choose different jobs then men and the job they pick might not make as much money as a job a man might pick.
In history, women had much fewer jobs and the jobs they had were usually being a secretary or being a factory worker. However, lately the gap has closed between what women earned and the jobs that they do. They now do more administration jobs and the amount women get payed has gotten closer to the amount that men get payed. A benefit of women working is that employers enjoy having a wider selection and it can really benefit the economy in this way. It could hurt the economy if there are not enough jobs and two workers are in one family while another family has none and would not be able to support themselves while the other family would have a lot of money and this could create a larger gap between the rich and the poor in the economy. The economic justification for why women still dont get payed the same amount is that owners have gotten used to paying less for women to do the same jobs and use it as an incentive to hire them as workers over a male worker.
Until the early 1900s, women had a very small presence in the labor force, at most working simple, low-level jobs until they married and had the financial support of a husband. Then WWI and WWII came. Both events temporarily removed many men from the labor force, and women had to fill the void. Many chose to continue working, making education and jobs more of an option for women as time went on. There has always been a supposed "wage gap" between men and women. This gap has closed significantly in the United States in the past 30 years, decreasing about 20% to the current level of slightly under 20%. According to the article, there have been economic benefits to the entry of women into the work force, but the benefits given had no supporting evidence and seemed to be there to please female readers. The only real benefit to their entry is increased supply of labor, which is needed for economic expansion. The cost of the increase, though, is a decrease in wages for workers. Regarding the wage gap, there could very well be an economic justification for it: a woman's labor isn't worth as much as a man's. It's all about derived demand. If women up their game and start providing more marginal resource product to the firms in which they work, then their wages will increase accordingly.
It wasn't until the 70's when women really began to joing the workforce alongside men. This massive arrival of women into the workforce was called the "quiet revolution." In the 1920's, women tended to have jobs that required very little education. I the 30's many of these women began to go to school and receive an education, allowing for the gap between male and female workers to shorten. Typical jobs for women expanded over the years from domestic servants, to secretaries, to now; a place where women compete with men for the same jobs.
The gap was shortened thru the use of federal regulation and continued shifts in preferences of firms in the market. People's attitudes about women workers gradually bur surely changed over time.
The introduction of more women into the workplace has had both its positive ad negative affects on the market ad people. For example, firms, thankfully, now have many more options to choose from, and many businesses have noted that women are more "flexible," and "cheaper."These new workers are also spending money and helping the world go round.
With an understanding of derived demand the pay gap between men and women seems unjustifiable. Years of a male dominated workforce have have altered the preferences of many firms in whether they should hire a women over a man. Apart from that that women can do the same level of work providing the same MRP as men(if not slightly better)
Until the early twentieth century women often did not work, and when they did, it was in domestic jobs such as maid, etc. As women gained access to higher education, their potential job choices expanded and new sectors became available to women. Anti-sexism and equal opportunity laws closed the gap between women and men, but the fact remains that women are often paid less for the same jobs as men. The economic cost of women entering the job market is an increased supply of labor, and consequently, a lower derived demand and lower wages for all workers. The economic justification of the wage gap lies in derived demand. When there are fewer workers in the market, wages will be higher, so if men wanted higher wages, they would induce the wage gap. This does not, however, mean that the wage gap is morally just.
I am sorry my post is one hour late. I am at a speech and debate tournament at Princeton, and have not had access to the internet for two days. Do I at least get half grade? Pleasssee!
Until the early twentieth century women often did not work, and when they did, it was in domestic jobs such as maid, etc. As women gained access to higher education, their potential job choices expanded and new sectors became available to women. Anti-sexism and equal opportunity laws closed the gap between women and men, but the fact remains that women are often paid less for the same jobs as men. The economic cost of women entering the job market is an increased supply of labor, and consequently, a lower derived demand and lower wages for all workers. The economic justification of the wage gap lies in derived demand. When there are fewer workers in the market, wages will be higher, so if men wanted higher wages, they would induce the wage gap. This does not, however, mean that the wage gap is morally just.
I am sorry my post is one hour late. I am at a speech and debate tournament at Princeton, and have not had access to the internet for two days. Do I at least get half grade? Pleasssee!
Domestically, women have always, and probably always will contribute. But in the work force, we don't have a history of being too influential, coming from a background of factory workers, nannies and maids, school house teachers and secretaries. That range of occupations had broadened over the years to a large variety of other jobs, and with those jobs came better wages. This cam be attributed to the massive increase in women going to college, and actually graduating with degrees and what not. Regardless of that said fact, the former ever-narrowing wage gap has slowed down in pace, as auren in the NY Times chart. Maybe this could be explained by pondering what the marginal benefit of hiring a woman is as opposed to hiring a man. Theoretically, if the man contributes more, then he's probably going to be seen in the eyes of the company as being worth more. Over all, though, countries have to spend less on immigrants because in a way, women have immigrated to the workforce. Countries who silk especially benefit from this include China, who is eventually going to sure off because no one is being born. I apologize for this lateness; Mister Long can I be your best man.
Prior to 1870, U.S. censuses didn't include women in the workforce numbers, because they (women) were comparatively few. And even when they did "get jobs," they were factory workers and dress makers making paltry livings. OH HEY NOTHING HAS CHANGED! Except the fact that women are now holding 9-5 jobs that require higher education but don't seem to merit higher pay. Maybe I'm being unfair, certainly women make more now; but they still make A LOT less than men.I mean come on, even after Legally Blonde female lawyers are making 22% less thaqn their male counterparts?!
My theory on the wage gap is that the demand for male labor is higher because there are fewer and fewer male undergrads each year and there are fewer motivated men than women. The motivation piece is meant with no disrespect, I simply mean that women have to work harder to get to high position in their field than men do. Please excuse the feminism.
¬¬¬I’m gonna try and keep this civil…
Until the 20th century, women were confined to menial jobs in the factory force, given that they had little opportunity to advance anywhere else. As time went on, doors began opening up in the form of secretary positions, and eventually jobs as teachers and social workers. When society in general began to become more egalitarian, offering opportunities for women to attain higher educations than ever before, the gap between men and women in the labour force began to close. All the way up through the 1990s, women were on a fast track to equality in the workplace, and this has contributed enormously to the economy in terms of providing a greater variety and selection of labourers and increasing this country’s GDP by almost 25%, according to experts. These same experts predict that closing the labour gap completely could increase our GDP by another 9% – something we desperately need at this point.
Derived demand, or the idea that any employer’s reasoning for hiring a worker is to increase profit and output, basically dictates every decision in this situation, especially those that involve hiring women and paying them less. Over time, women have generally been considered less valuable than men, and since they have not been allowed the same opportunities, they’ve usually been willing to accept lower wages for the same jobs. Not anymore (I should hope). Especially since they’ve come to the work force a lot later than men, the percentage of males who hold higher positions in the work force hasn’t changed much.
Also, given that this country has always been run by men and for men, can you really expect anything else?
Historically, societies of the world have used women as caretakers of the children and household, and have used men as the main driver of the labor force. When the industrial revolution hit, women started becoming more involved in factory work, and really took over the factories during WWII. Ever since, women have become more educated and established figures of society and hold a much wider range of jobs and professions. Now that there is a much higher supply of women in the workforce, wages have seen a noticeable decrease despite the increase in production and profit. The wage gap between men and women can be justified only because women generally choose more lower-paying jobs, and jobs that have a lower demand, than jobs that men choose.
Historically, women were rarely involved in the workforce. Seeing a woman working was like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs. Straight malarkey. If they were found in the workforce, it was normally in lower-level jobs: seamstresses, tailors, working in factory, housewives (being a mom is the most important job) e.t.c., basically any job that would prove that women are lower than men. The gap is now closing drastically (Thank God, a girl's gotta be able to sustain a nice lifestyle nowadays) because women have fought for their right to work. Gaining higher education and being skilled put them in the same category as men. They took the jobs men wouldn't and began to rise in power. Because women began entering the workforce, there was an increase in the supply of workers available. The increase in the amount of labor meant a decrease in wages, but, the GDP increased due to the women entering the workforce. This was good for companies and also, in a way, good for women. They are able to prove that they can be just as sufficient. And occasionally, you will find that in some careers, women make more than men. Like, let's say, the entertainment industry, movie theatres as an example. I make more than most of my male coworkers because I have worked there longer than them. One should earn an increase in their pay. They should not be paid more just because they are of a certain gender. I feel that there is justification in the wage gap because according to the graph, because women choose jobs in industries such as service, sales, and office, naturally, they are going to earn less than their male counterparts. Like I stated earlier, one should not naturally make more just because of gender. There has to be justification. Gotta work hard for the money, so you better treat 'em right.
Since cell phones have become popular, people in Africa have been able to expand their abilities. Cell phones gave them the ability to transfer money, increasing the movement of money in the economy. Some have access to the internet, which would allow them to buy things online.
The demand for cell phones is rising, so workers who make cell phones are demanded more. If MRP is still rising when additional workers are hired, this is allows more people to work. This employs more workers and thus, puts more money into the economy. People may start other businesses for cell phones because they see the income that they are making. This would provide higher quality technology because of competition.
Cell phones are effective. Everyone needs communication. Although I am not educated on the farms in Africa, I know that farmers in the United States tend to have a lot of land. They also hire workers for the fields. If a farmer wants to check on his workers or if the workers need to call someone for additional help, cell phones would provide them with convenient communication. Some cell phones get internet access. This would be especially resourceful for farmers. They could get weather updates and news regarding insects or other animals that would affect their crops. Farmers who have female cows sometimes send them to get impregnated. A farmer could use internet to find a place to go to and then either get an app acting as a GPS or go on MapQuest. The article also mentions that farmers can use it for trade and checking market prices. They may even play Farmville for some entertainment.
Since cell phones became popular in Africa, various economic developments have been made on the continent. Cell phones have eased market transactions between the rural poor, and induced huge investments in infrastructure, which in turn leads to other cultural and economic advancements. For example, as companies invest in the African cell phone market, road are built to allow installation of cell phone towers, and these roads in turn allow rural farmers to take their goods to larger markets. Increased cell phone penetration throughout Africa will help improve economic conditions. In terms of marginal revenue product, cell phones are a variable input, and marginal revenue product measures the additional revenue generated by the addition of each variable input. The increased penetration of cell phones leads to generation of additional revenue by facilitating transactions, and in turn leads to increased infrastructure investment. Farmers in Africa can use cell phones to receive updates on the latest market prices for their produce, make money transactions in order to buy new seeds, tools, etc., and even communicate with other local farmers in order to collude and jointly set higher prices.
Since cell phones became popular in Africa, various economic developments have been made on the continent. Cell phones have eased market transactions between the rural poor, and induced huge investments in infrastructure, which in turn leads to other cultural and economic advancements. For example, as companies invest in the African cell phone market, road are built to allow installation of cell phone towers, and these roads in turn allow rural farmers to take their goods to larger markets. Increased cell phone penetration throughout Africa will help improve economic conditions. In terms of marginal revenue product, cell phones are a variable input, and marginal revenue product measures the additional revenue generated by the addition of each variable input. The increased penetration of cell phones leads to generation of additional revenue by facilitating transactions, and in turn leads to increased infrastructure investment. Farmers in Africa can use cell phones to receive updates on the latest market prices for their produce, make money transactions in order to buy new seeds, tools, etc., and even communicate with other local farmers in order to collude and jointly set higher prices.
There have been many improvements to the economy since the introduction of cell phones to Africa. Not only are the sales of cell phones good for the economy, but cell phones help the farmers.They are able to check market prices, trade, and transfer money. A high demand and supply for cell phones will keep countries in good economic conditions. When the demand is high, the marginal revenue will increase. This will keep the marginal revenue product high, allowing more workers to be hired. Hopefully the derived demand for workers will stay high, meaning workers bring in a lot of marginal revenue, so more workers can be hired. For the farmers of Africa, knowing the market price will help them greatly. Since most farm products are in close to perfectly competitive markets, not selling for the market price hurts the farmer. So, if they sell for less that leaves money on the table. If they sell for a higher price, less people will buy and revenue will decrease. This will keep Africa very productive.
Demand for cell phones in Africa is increasing to new records currently. Due to the increase in demand for cell phones the money invested into infrastructure has also increased. In order to expand the use of cell phones the need for cell towers has increased. In order to place these cell towers in various locations the need for roads has also increased. With the demand for cell phones so high the country is bound to see economic improvement. If the demand is high then the marginal revenue will be higher and with that there will be a increase in marginal revenue product. Many people would not associate cell phones with farmers but in reality the increase of cell phone usage would allow the farmers to see what the market value of their produce and crops would be allowing them to increase productivity when and where necessary. Cell phones in general will have a very positive impact on Africa everywhere from increasing productivity and infrastructure to just making communication in general easier for the common man.
The sky rocketing sales of cell phones alone helps to boost the economy. Not only that but the additional information and level of communication the cell phones make possible for Africans and people of the world increases money transfer and flow. It helps farmers to trade with much more ease and efficiency. Increased cellphone penetration worldwide will help the economy because it is adding another variable to the revenue input. Also, as the demand for cell phones continues to rise, so will the MRP and the demand for workers. This will open up more jobs and therefore help economic conditions. Lastly, African farmers use cell phones not only as means of communication but more so for the other information they give access to. Many farmers use their cell phones to trade and check current market prices, as well as make money transfers. It is also helpful and a lot less expensive than owning a land line because some in Africa offer car charges and phones that are priced per call rather than on a call. Cell phones help them save money while they are also contributing to their work.
Since the introduction of cell phones, there have been many improvements to the African economy. The growth of the market for cell phones alone has had an effect of the economy. It also has created jobs for sellers of cell phones, created a market for charging stations, and made it easier for businesspeople to communicate. The demand for cell phone service has created a need for more roads. These new roads, along with easier communication made possible by cell phone use, allow farmers to expand their markets and transport their product. The high demand for cell phones will keep the marginal revenue high, invigorating the economy. The marginal revenue product will be kept high, creating the need for more workers. The use of cell phones in Africa will be able to improve productivity for all workers on the continent. Cell phones will allow farmers to stay in touch with their clients and make it easier for them to sell. They can more easily check market prices and appropriately set their prices and output quantity. The advantages of communication by cell phone will be great for all businesses and workers in Africa.
Since cell phones became popular in Africa, the economy has improved in many ways. Operators have invested a lot of money into the infrastructure of the cell phone industry. Also, having cell phones has allowed everyone from business owners to farmers to use them to improve their businesses. Using mobile services to do things such a transfer money and trade and check market prices, cell phones have opened up new connections for people who may not have had ways to do these things before. The derived demand of cell phones will increase due to how much they can help farmers get things done in an easy and efficient manner. This increase in technology increases the marginal product which in turn causes the marginal revenue product to increase, which is always good. If rural farmers in Africa can improve their situation, most other people should be able to as well. Cell phone could be used effectively to improve productivity by increasing communication between farmers as well as between farmers and buyers. If the farmers had better communication between themselves, it could help to create a more organized farming infrastructure that could help to increase the amount of food produced and decrease the price and costs. By being able to check the market prices and trade using cell phones, farmers could be more connected than ever making their farming choices more efficient and helping the economy.
Cell phones have improved the economy by allowing for an improvement of the availability of knowledge about the economy for farmers.
The increased penetration of cell phones will cause the MRP to rise, which in turn will allow more workers to be hired, which will cause more money to be inputted into the economy.
Cell phones can be used to increase productivity by making collusion easier. the individual farmers can now more easily communicate, allowing them to collude easier and be more productive with their farming.
The amount of women in the labor force has increased quite alot since the 1970s. Most of these women work service, sales, or office jobs. The gap has closed somewhat because the percent of women in the workforce has increase by around 16%. Companies seem to prefer women for office and sales type jobs.
The introduction of cell phones in Africa will help their economy out by allowing people to more easily and quickly make transactions and/or transfer money. When people can communicate more effectively, the economy can become more effective and subsequently grow.
The derived demand of cell phones is high because of its vast improvements on the economy and when the marginal revenue product is high more jobs will be created.
Cell phones will increase African productivity because the farmers can check market prices and adjust their prices accordingly, thus making the market much more competitive and economically beneficial.
I have never really been a fan of the cell phone, except for my phone itself, which I have had for almost six years now. Its battery lasts forever, it never breaks, I have never had any trouble with the software on it, and I once Light Blasted a demon in the face with it. I am pretty sure that Hephaestus must have forged it, because there are no flaws present.
Now let's talk about Africa. Cell phone operators in Uganda are making huge investments in infrastructure there, particularly in the rural areas. The more people who get interested in cell phones, the more opportunities for jobs to open up either as a vendor, service provider, or the person who builds a tower.Popular mobile services are also including money transfers, which allow people without bank accounts to send money by text message. This obviously helps the economy.
Increased cell phone penetration will help the economy because the demand for cell phones will increase. As the demand increases,the marginal revenue will increase. More workers will be hired because of the increased marginal revenue product. These workers will be able to supply the high demand for cell phones in Africa; this is a tall order because it is already huge and is continuing to rise.
Those who toil in fields will certainly benefit from the use of the cell phone. Many farmers are now using cell phones in order to trade and check market prices. Since many Africans are farmers, this knowledge of the market and ease of trade will improve the economy.
Infrastructure plays a big part to improving the economy. In areas like Africa many nations have poor infrastructure that doesn't allow them to use cell phones. Many of these nations are undeveloped and experience little technology. Because the cell phones now are available and easy to obtain many new consumers will be brought to the market. Cell phones might not directly affect the farmer, but if there's more money flowing in the economy people might be willing to spend on these. The demand will therefore increase.
Infrastructure plays a big part to improving the economy. In areas like Africa many nations have poor infrastructure that doesn't allow them to use cell phones. Many of these nations are undeveloped and experience little technology. Because the cell phones now are available and easy to obtain many new consumers will be brought to the market. Cell phones might not directly affect the farmer, but if there's more money flowing in the economy people might be willing to spend on these. The demand will therefore increase.
Cell phones have caused numerous improvements in Africa's economy. Citizens are now able to transfer money, check and trade market prices, and make investments in infrastructure. All of these things improve the economy as a whole. Increased cell phone penetration throughout the continent will improve the entire economy, not only the cell phone market. Because demand is higher, companies are able to produce more and charge more. As a result, workers and other factors of production receive higher compensation for their services. Since people are willing to pay more, companies can charge more, and companies can produce more, marginal revenue increases and, therefore, marginal revenue product increases. Cell phones could easily improve productivity in Africa. Farmers could use cell phones to check and trade market prices, which would lead to a cost that would maximize their profit. If the farmers in Africa could communicate, they could work together to name fair prices for certain goods. Also, cell phones may help workers find jobs. If more workers find jobs, unemployment decreases and the economy becomes more productive. Cell phones would help people communicate, create fair prices, and lead to other technologies and improvements.
As a result of the increased popularity of cell phones in Africa, people without bank accounts can send or receive money by text message. Also, farmers use mobiles to trade and check market prices. As a result, some markets are closer to becoming perfectly competitive. Because cell phones are very useful and convenient, they have a high derived demand, and thus a high marginal revenue. This helps street vendors by allowing them to make a profit, and also helps cell-phone users because they become more efficient and most likely have to hire less workers. This is very beneficial for African farmers because it allows them to collude and set a profit-maximizing price.
The popularity of cell phones into Africa has made many economic benefits for the continent. The cell phones have created revenue for the continent just because of their sales. Also phones are beneficial to the people in the country such as the farmers who can trade over the phone, invest more easily, transfer money, etc. The farther the popularity of cell phones spread, the better the economy will get. Marginal revenue product computes the amount of money created by a variable and cell phones will be a great form of revenue. The derived demand for workers will most likely stay high or increase because phones will make it easier for companies to run. This will create a perfectly competitive farming market in Africa which will lead to fairer prices and a better overall economy in Africa.
Since cell phones became popular in Africa, people are able to transfer money, check market prices, and other popular cell phone services. These new features can be used to improve markets that are rapidly growing because now companies will be able to target those without bank accounts and it overall increases communication which in turn combines smaller markets and starts the building of a large market infrastructure. Those such as farmers are able to become part of a larger market and are able to use to services of the cell phone to check market prices and use that information in their own sales and purchases. Increasing cell phone penetration will improve economic conditions because as marginal revenue product are still rising, the amount of workers being hired by companies will rise and that will promote economic growth which overall increases economic conditions.
Since the advent of mobile phones and their ensuing rise to paramount importance in modern culture, they have had an unprecedented effect on almost every country on earth.
Their influence on the African continent and its economy is unmeasurable, from increased investments in infrastructure and network provision to the encouragement of monetary transfers, which in turn bolsters the circulation of wealth. Given that cellular coverage is a variable input – to use fancy economic terms – the MRP of cell phone usage will fluctuate as the practice becomes more and more popular. The idea is that as mobile technology further “penetrates” the African continent, it will generate revenue by encouraging monetary exchange, advanced communications, and increased access for those who live in rural areas. More than ever before, society across the globe is rapidly developing due to technology that we privileged folk in the Western Hemisphere take for granted every day. While the villagers in Uganda are using their cell phones to advance local business ventures and transform society, all we can think to do is update our Facebook statuses every 45 seconds. Go figure.
In terms of productivity in Africa, the use of cell phones helps farmers as well as businesses branch out of their local communities to capitalize on a larger market. This increased access to price updates and other transactions allows them to modify their own strategies or productivity levels in order to meet demand or compete with other suppliers. In fact, in this day and age it’s hard to imagine conducting business without all of this technology.
Waka waka, eh eh, this time for Africa.
Because of the introduction of cellular devices, the economy of Africa was heavily stimulated and encouraged economic growth. The ability to do business with other countries is now available. The drastic improvement in penetration (0.2% in 1995 to 23% in 2008)shows that cell phones are beneficial and, although most parents would disagree, can change lives in a positive way. With the increased penetration, it is evident that cell phones are beneficial, which means the factories making the phones receive higher demand, which means they need to increase supply to satisfy, so they hire more workers creating new job opportunities for Africans. In turn, decreasing unemployment and keeping the economy stable.
Farmers are able to keep in-the-know with pricing and communicate
in order to set the prices for each crop and do business overseas as well. All in all, cell phones greatly benefit not only businesses, but the people as well. They have the opportunity to talk to family members and friends that are near or far away. The end.
SENT FROM A CELLULAR DEVICE.
^hehehe, just kidding.
Cell phones have had a significant economic impact. New jobs are being created in fields such as general phone sales, as well as construction (for building of cell phone towers, etc). With high an increasing demand for cell phones, more jobs are being created. This can be explained economically, in terms of Marginal Revenue and Marginal Revenue Product. As the demand increases, so does the MR. With high MR, the MRP also increases, allowing more opportunities for workers. If the workers continue to keep a high MR, more workers will be hired. For farmers, cell phones allow them to stay updated on market prices, as well as trade/collude with other local farmers.
Okay so I'm pretty fired up after a week of finishing up college apps to women's colleges, but I'm going to try so hard to keep this civil.
In reality, this is a man's country. Our president is male, our congress is over 90% male. Interestingly enough, these men make up only 49% of our country. They- like I already mentioned- are also the minority in college (undergrad at least). But what I failed to realize, mostly because of my bias, is that there may be some unfair, but possibly legitiment reasons for the wage gap. Take the example of physicians: women of this profession make 40% less than their male counterparts. This could be because women are IN GENERAL more likely than men to think emotionally. I seriously believe that's why we haven't had a female president. But I'll get back to the facts, because my conspiracy theories wouldn't hold up well in a discussion with an economist. Women are the majority, yes? So why aren't they making at least equal to men in most fields. While their contributions to the workforce are recongnized and greatly appreciated, they are still less than those of men. Men started this countries economy, and it is unsurprising that there are still more working men than women. If we note this, we should also find it unsurprising that men are making more in the same fields, because the more men there are, the more likely it is that they will be getting the higher paying jobs. (Especially because the people that hired them were probably male) And I don't think this is as much based on misogyism as it is on comfortability. Sort of like how I conveyed my idea about why we've never had a female president. I believe in a couple decades (or maybe less!) we will see the numbering evening out, as they have been pretty consistently since the 60's. But until then we will just have to accept that men are still demanded more for top positions. We are not all created equal; for many years now, employers have calculated derived demand is a way that favors men. Whateva, I smell change!
Since cellphones have been introduced to developing countries, the average number of cellphone users has soared due to easy access and those who do not have electricity can charge their cellphones at vending carts. Because more people are using cellphones, they can easily access banks without having to travel to them. Thus putting more money into the economy. Since the demand for cellphones are now so high, company's can charge more money for these devices. For farmers, they are able to check local trade with the cellphones unlike when there weren't cellphones. It's much easier now for Farmers to see exactly how much they can make so they won't over produce. I believe allowing cellphones to be sold in Africa, it can really boost an already slow economy.
Demand for cellphones in Africa is growing exponentially. Between 2003 and 2008, subscriptions in Africa rose from 54 million to almost 350 million. This booming industry benefits the economy in many ways. Increased cellphone penetration throughout the continent helps improve economic conditions because any increase in technology leads to increases in marginal product of labor which results in higher marginal revenue product. In the case of Africa, cellphones will allow better communication and work in African markets. Companies and operators are willing to invest more in the infrastructure of Africa's developing nations. For example, about one fourth of Ugandans have mobile subscriptions, and the increase in demand for cellphones and cellphone plans has caused operators to make investments in the country's infrastructure. Happening in mostly rural areas, this exchange, like in many other African countries, benefits the rural people. Farmers are able to trade and check market prices with mobiles. This increases their productivity raising marginal product simultaneously with marginal revenue product. This efficiency allows for increased outputs and ultimately more profit for farmers in developing African countries.
Cell phones provide a great tool for the African farmers. This way they are able to stay on top of trade and the markets. The use of cell phones will increase the productivity of farmers. Since the demand for cell phones in africa has increased in the last few years the marginal revenue will be high and will also cause the marginal revenue product to increase. This would cause more workers to be hired and increase economic conditions overall.
The introduction of cell phones in Africa has had a fantastic effect on anyone who doesn't live in the country with seven pairs of pigs and a cow, because evidently countryfolk are unattractive, and therefore hardly anyone wants to sell them mobile cellular devices. For those who do have an assortment of Razors, Droids, iPhones, or whatever else exists in the African cellular phone market, the market is experiencing great benefits; it's expanding, there are new markets and small businesses being formed, like the mobile street vendors, and the already-there firms in the business of technology is only getting stronger. In response to the question of how this will help the African economy, I say that the emergence of cell phones has and will continue to raise the level of consumers looking to gain access to internet service, resulting in the creation of many and more internet services, helping the people spend the money they got from working at these new firms and get it circulating throughout the economy. Understandably, bankers enjoy cell phones' numerous uses, but surprisingly, so do farmers, for they can use cell phones to check the crop market.
The rapidly rising popularity of cell phones in Africa is great for the economy. As more people want a cell phone, the demand will increase, and this causes a whole turn of events for the economy; more jobs are created for people to make, sell, and create service for the phones, they create accessories and junk for phones that helps even more because people are spending money. Overall, cell phones can have a pretty strong benefit for Africa, especially considering the sheer massiveness of the continent.
The phones can help increase productivity in Africa because now people like farmers and other lower class workers can call one another and buy, sell, trade, and do all other sorts of business they never could before due to poor infrastructure that made it nearly impossible to stay in touch.
Post a Comment