This is an example of excess in demand, as seen by the photo of the lunch line a couple of weeks ago, there was chicken tenders and fries sold for lunch. The swarm of students and the warfare conducted near the front was an immediate indicator of the chicken taken from the shelves before they could be replenished, a clear sign of excess in demand
In the passed months , the Obama administration has fought to raise the federal minimum wage above its current level. There are many people who support this and are extremely curious how much longer it will take until it has passed. What has perplexed my interest is what economists have to say about the minimum wage. In my government and economics course we had a brief period discussing over why price floors are destructive to the efficiency of production.
When the government raises price floors. They are intended to increase the money in workers pocketbooks. This in turn gives them more money to be spent elsewhere. Unfortunately, that is not the case, rather than creating a profitable working class it creates one that struggles to find employment. If the price floor is higher than equilibrium, then we find ourselves and excess in supply. Meaning that employers demand less workers because they are at a higher price. In fact, if the Obama administration gets the minimum wage at $9.40, there will be an estimated of 450,000 jobs lost. This will cause a huge hit to our finally stable employment.
Although it is probably best to keep the minimum wage where it is, there are some who want it gone for good. After all, companies are not just competing for customers, but for employees too. If you are a worker, you will go with the company that offers you the best deal. So in a way, the market also affects wages. Just as I mentioned earlier, if the minimum wage increases, you will most likely see unemployment rise. That is a sign that the market wants labor at a lower price. So naturally workers will accept a lower price so he could be employed. This will push the market back to equilibrium, and have the economy operating at maximum efficiency.
Another way to understand the effect of excess in demand is America’s college situation. We have such a large number of graduates seeking to enroll in college, yet they cannot make it because they are not the most qualified. This has caused ACT and SAT scores to rise astronomically. There are now so many students ready for college that there are not enough students to fill their place. With the standard of admittance rising, the lower income families who cant afford to send their kids to fancier schools so they can get a better chance at admittance. All this happened because there were more students ready for college than spots available.
Our economics course really opened my eyes. I understood the fact that government intervention is best when it is as little as possible, but I never understood why. Perhaps the reason why Obama and most of america wants a higher minimum wage is to give a pat on the back to those who work hard and receive little. But what they don’t understand, is that if they really want to help the workers. They should not raise the minimum wage.
This photo is an example the difference between scarcity and shortage, each of these products are scarce in the terms of a limited quantity, but the photo shows what shortage looks like.
This photo shows competition and how the brokers are trying to buy a certain stock first because there are limited stocks and many people who want one.
The American voters have very high expectations for The President of the United States of America. They expect him to protect their homes from domestic and foreign invaders, lead the executive branch and provide guidance for the legislative branch, provide funds to promote job creation and economic growth, and to provide funds for those who can’t (or won’t) provide for themselves. This a lot for one man and his staff to juggle. Before you judge the disappointing presidents before Obama, remember what they had to deal with and ask yourself. Are our expectations of the president just according to the office he holds?
Ever since 9/11, our defense budget has increased by 114 percent. Our armed forces have bases that hold an area greater than that of D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey combined. That is a lot to manage. Not only do American citizens, but the world expects America to be the first to respond to a crisis. So far during that time period, we have. We have spent countless hours in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to create an environment in the Middle East that is hostile toward Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. We spend an enormous amount of money to maintain this force to protect not only our shores but also those of other nations.
The president also is the head of both the Executive branch (naturally) and the Legislative branch. He is expected to carry out all the tasks in an Executive Branch that covers: the military, foreign relations, economic matters, public safety, and relief. He is responsible with the task of maintaining the largest military the world has seen. This branch also has the task of not using that military with maintaining exceptional international relations. It also deals with domestic matters. It bears the blame or reward of the economy the branch produces. It is also responsible for relief. With Super-storm Sandy, states have been pleading for extensive relief packages. Obama has an extra duty to asses as well. With Newtown he is taking on a greater role of public safety as well. The president is also expected to be a leader in congress. He negotiates and bargains to get the bills he supports passed. He provides helpful suggestions for Congress to consider or approve. Apart from the Judicial Branch, the president has to manage almost the entire government.
The American people have also put the responsibility of the economy on the presidency. He is now responsible for jobs as well as the GDP. If you look at previous presidents before the Great Depression, all policies were hands off. Now after the horrors of the Great Depression, Government is supposed to consistently have their hands on the economy. With this consistent hands-on policy, the presidency takes whatever blame comes its way for a poor stretch. With this policy, not only does the government take the blame for a poor stretch, they take the fall for unemployment, falls in stock prices, and lowered GDP. If you look at the last two elections, much of the heated debate was about addressing the problem of unemployment, the low GDP, and the lowest stock market since the Great Depression. It seems odd, that it were the corporations: who packed up and moved factories to China, who let go workers, and who diminished manufacturing presence in America, go away without a scratch. Yet all fingers point to the oval office.
With the poor times that this country has faced in the past 5 years, our Government has been forced to take on a major role in entitlement programs. Since 2000, entitlement spending by the federal government equally matched the tax revenue. This means that the President has to supervise Federal programs that is 18.25% of the GDP. This involves Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Welfare programs. Each of which has more that tripled since 1993. These programs have now become an essential part in debates and presidential satisfactory ratings. People have lost faith in businesses to create jobs, they now rely on the Federal Government. They have forgotten that businesses are the force that create jobs. They have asked the government to create jobs. Yet it is only until now that we have asked it to be run like one.
Are these tasks we have put upon the president a just call for fixing the flaws in society, or are we putting too much power and too much responsibility on one man? In the revolutionary period, we were dead scared of a king. One man who had absolute power and authority. Flash forward 233 years later and we have a man we is responsible for maintaining peace over the entire globe, supervising not only one branch of government but also having an ever stronger influence in congress, bearing the burden of mitigating a recovering economy, and being the shoulder to constantly lean on in times of need. Are we asking too much of the president? Are the requests that we make just compared to the powers this office has? Does the executive branch have too much power? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves in 2016. We don’t need to ask where my paycheck is, or will my children be able to go to school. We need to ask ourselves are we putting the best man in office that will create an environment that is best for the America of tomorrow.
In the past few months America has seen several events of major reactions to the horror of Newtown. These reactions have been of pessimism, fear, and mainly disgust. As Obi-One Kenobi said, “Don’t give into hate; that leads to the dark side.” If you look at many of these protests, many of them have been irrational and led by an emotional and instinctive drive. Gun Control is something that has to be fixed, but let’s be rational and not get carried away. The American public needs to step back and take a deep breath before we approach this problem so we do something we won’t regret. If you take a look at the safety measures implemented in our schools, they are completely ridiculous. They have criminalized several forms of normal, childish play that have no potential threat to the schools whatsoever.
In order for us to effectively address the problem of lack of gun control, we need to control our approach to it first. Naturally, with Newtown being in an Elementary school, our first reaction was to take place in school safety. We have talked of extra security and arming teachers, but the policy that has been put in place seems to be the silliest of them all: get all guns out of school completely. Now they’re not talking about an actual, deadly gun. They have included anything that looks or is remotely used like a gun. Kids have been suspended for running around in recess shooting a gun made from their hand, a gun out of Legos, even for a Hello Kitty Bubble gun that had a range of eighteen inches.
These instances have brought a firestorm of a response. Parents have reacted very passionately, bringing embarrassment to both the schools and to any potential lawmaker who proposes gun control laws based on pure emotions. If we are to make a real, lasting, and effective change to gun control then we need to make rational decision on which law we pass. Both anti-guns and gun rights advocates are all pushing the extremes of this argument but we have to stay in the middle. Down the middle is the only way that we can make an effective change that latter generations will remember us. Not to mention that it is the only way anything will be passed.