Y1/IB 36) Policies to Reduce Unemployment with Evaluation

[@zhilongsong8978]

The most handsome teacher I've ever known

[@dboss5013]

no homo tho?

[@MidhannAhuja]

u have no idea how much this helped me, god bless

[@heangseavhouy3680]

This is an excellent vdo that i ever seen ... Thumb up (y)

[@olives827]

Excellent, excellent, excellent really love how you structure these. Something you didn't mention for evaluation was the philips curve which would suggest if we reduce unemployment we might increase inflation. Just a thought. Thanks again

[@monfernova]

That is at A2 level, which is probably why he didn't see the need to introduce it :)

[@__-kg4jt]

Hello, it's been 6 years just wanted to check how are you doing?

[@jacksyder-mills]

That makes perfect sense. The increase in employment, is likely to cause an increase in real disposable income compared to before with those on benefits, increasing Consumption, which is likely to outsrtip the small fall in government spending so AD will actually increase, (especially with a creation of sustainable employment in this case), decreasing unemployment. And with the concept of the multiplier effect it is likely that AD will shift to the right by more than the initial injection of consumer spending.

[@joshhutchings388]

Nerd

[@mayaessam6858]

A legend & a life saver

[@mayurpatel6731]

defo going to make MY LIFE EPIC JOURNEY (for supply side policies)

[@zwitterions6769]

YOU ARE A GREAT TEACHER!!! THANK YOU!

[@lidjio9262]

Who dislike well explained free stuff, People!

[@haribsepucho1721]

You're a great teacher :)

[@christellemarchese9165]

perfect! Thank you

[@jacksyder-mills]

As you stated earlier, reducing unemployment benefits, incentives those unemployed to seek work as the gap between a productive income and benefits increases, making employment more favourable. This will increase the quantity of labour shifting AS to the right and so on. And this May solve the problem of frictional unemployment, reducing the transition stage, as there is greater incentive to find a job sooner. But as this is a component of Government Spending, albeit 7% and G encompasses over 40% of Real GDP (in the uk) is it possible that this will reduce Real GDP, increasing unemployment as labour is a derived demand, derived from demand for goods and services. As increasing an economy's productive capacity increases an economy's ability to employ more workers through increasing its capacity, this doesn't necessarily decrease unemployment? Therefore if G falls, AD falls and unemployment in fact increases? Is this an example where frictional unemployment is reduced but other forms of unemployment increase, I understand how it decreases this type of unemployment by bringing greater incentive to work but the fall in AD seems contradictory. Is this a negative unintended consequence of this policy?

[@EconplusDal]

Interesting point but unlikely to occur. With more people in work, the benefits that accrue are likely to be far more favourable than a fiscal policy with severe limitations. Though in theory welfare spending cuts will decrease AD, if more people then take up jobs, incomes will certainly be higher than the benefits previously received increasing spending power and the growth potential of the economy overriding this potential reduction, furthermore the employment opportunities created by growth this would be substantial. At the same time, a form of unsustainable government spending has been taken away, nowadays, the only way for governments to finance out of control welfare spending is through a combination of higher rates of tax and borrowing both at the detriment of the long run health of the economy. To simplify the argument, the benefits far outweigh any potential costs hence why it has become a mainstream economic idea although a dangerous political one for obvious reasons!

[@harsh0811]

Why would there be a conflict with inflation for cyclical unemployment? Cyclical unemployment occurs when there is a recession so why there is spare capacity in the economy. There is an increase in growth and real output with little or no inflationary pressure... right?

[@EconplusDal]

Harsh B Remember the definition of recession is two successive quarters of negative growth so no guarantee that the amount of spare capacity available is such whereby there will be no inflationary pressure. Having said this, your point is strong - it would be a good way to make a judgement at the end of your essay

[@harsh0811]

Thanks. Cyclical unemployment occurs when there is spare capacity so they wouldn't be inflationary pressure?

[@TheOrionMusicNetwork]

Harsh B Cyclical unemployment would likely be when there is a lot of spare capacity but the rise in AD would move the level of economic activity closer to full capacity leading to inflationary pressure. Whether or not that happens depends how much spare capacity there was to begin with, the size of the rise in AD and the multiplier. Hope that sort of helps.

[@harsh0811]

So in a recession very little inflationary pressure?

[@InbredMammoth]

what do you mean by removing employer regulation?

[@EconplusDal]

InbredMammoth Regulation regarding hiring/firing and maternity/paternity laws for example

[@harsh0811]

when there is *

[@fortunemichael5097]

I thought about this.what if you increase taxes but then create a bank like thing which the people who pay taxes can take money every three month from the bank like thing.So let's say if you pay tax of 300euros then increase to 400 but every three month the government can pay it back by giving you a loan of a 1000euros which in turn you will pay back with the 400euros every month.Can this help the economy?