bineal
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 82
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
if we can go back to economics, which is what this thread is about,
@ number 11, is D possible? i probably read too much into it, but if the dollar has appreciated, it is likely that it has been induced by increased demand from overseas, which would've occurred in the event of an interest rate rise, meaning increased capital inflow. I had B as my answer
@ 12, has it occurred to anyone that C is the answer because they want people to use the formula properly, not assume that since HDI has increased, Real GDP must have increased as well? The syllabus expects you to know the formula and even though economics is based on assumptions, I'm fairly sure they'd be testing the formula rather than an assumption, ( i say this because during the test i myself thought it was strange that real GDP growth would decrease in the event of economic development, but the formula stated otherwise). I chose C based on the formula for real GDP, which in the Tim Riley HSC economics textbook is stated as:
Real GDP = Nominal GDP x 100
------------- ----
1 CPI
from which you get 4615.38 for year 1
and 4533.3 for year 2, clearly less.
@ 19, this question is badly worded as there is no consensus on how long the worker has been retrenched for. retrenchment is dismissal based on operational requirements, so one who is retrenched is presumably still wanting a job. in the instance of one being retrenched, they would be classified as unemployed or even "underemployed", because they have lost their job despite still having the want to work. So as the question states, "IF people retrenched from their jobs, did not actively seek employment", the retrenched must be assumed to part of the labour force's unemployed. If they do not actively seek employment, then they are not counted in the labour force. For those people who say they go from retrenched straight to not actively seeking, this is impossible. an approximately four week leeway MUST be given. Think about it hypothetically, i've just been retrenched, so i am UNEMPLOYED. the ABS surveys for labour force every four weeks. even if i have chosen not to actively seek work, for those four weeks, the ABS will not know this and i will be assumed to be part of the labour force, yes?
Thus after that, in terms of the unemployment rate, (again another fallacy on behalf of the board), is that it may differ depending on the number unemployed, compared to the labour force obviously.
according to the unemployment rate formula
unemployed = total number unemployed 100
--------------------------------------- x ----
labour force (employed + unemployed) 1
using these figures for before retrenching
100 = labour force
10 = unemployed
10/100 x 100/1 = 10%
AFTER retrenching, assuming that 5 or so of the unemployed leave,
5/95 x 100/1 = 5.25%
similarly, with the figures
100 = L.F.
50 = unemployed
50/100 x 100/1 = 50%
and
45/95 x 100/1 = 47.36%
therefore the unemployment rate must be lower as well, so the answer is A.
this is because, as a proportion, the number leaving the unemployed will always be higher than the number leaving the whole labour force.
i.e. for 50 unemployed/100, 5 people leaving would be 10% leaving the unemployed however only 5% leaving the labour force.
@ number 11, is D possible? i probably read too much into it, but if the dollar has appreciated, it is likely that it has been induced by increased demand from overseas, which would've occurred in the event of an interest rate rise, meaning increased capital inflow. I had B as my answer
@ 12, has it occurred to anyone that C is the answer because they want people to use the formula properly, not assume that since HDI has increased, Real GDP must have increased as well? The syllabus expects you to know the formula and even though economics is based on assumptions, I'm fairly sure they'd be testing the formula rather than an assumption, ( i say this because during the test i myself thought it was strange that real GDP growth would decrease in the event of economic development, but the formula stated otherwise). I chose C based on the formula for real GDP, which in the Tim Riley HSC economics textbook is stated as:
Real GDP = Nominal GDP x 100
------------- ----
1 CPI
from which you get 4615.38 for year 1
and 4533.3 for year 2, clearly less.
@ 19, this question is badly worded as there is no consensus on how long the worker has been retrenched for. retrenchment is dismissal based on operational requirements, so one who is retrenched is presumably still wanting a job. in the instance of one being retrenched, they would be classified as unemployed or even "underemployed", because they have lost their job despite still having the want to work. So as the question states, "IF people retrenched from their jobs, did not actively seek employment", the retrenched must be assumed to part of the labour force's unemployed. If they do not actively seek employment, then they are not counted in the labour force. For those people who say they go from retrenched straight to not actively seeking, this is impossible. an approximately four week leeway MUST be given. Think about it hypothetically, i've just been retrenched, so i am UNEMPLOYED. the ABS surveys for labour force every four weeks. even if i have chosen not to actively seek work, for those four weeks, the ABS will not know this and i will be assumed to be part of the labour force, yes?
Thus after that, in terms of the unemployment rate, (again another fallacy on behalf of the board), is that it may differ depending on the number unemployed, compared to the labour force obviously.
according to the unemployment rate formula
unemployed = total number unemployed 100
--------------------------------------- x ----
labour force (employed + unemployed) 1
using these figures for before retrenching
100 = labour force
10 = unemployed
10/100 x 100/1 = 10%
AFTER retrenching, assuming that 5 or so of the unemployed leave,
5/95 x 100/1 = 5.25%
similarly, with the figures
100 = L.F.
50 = unemployed
50/100 x 100/1 = 50%
and
45/95 x 100/1 = 47.36%
therefore the unemployment rate must be lower as well, so the answer is A.
this is because, as a proportion, the number leaving the unemployed will always be higher than the number leaving the whole labour force.
i.e. for 50 unemployed/100, 5 people leaving would be 10% leaving the unemployed however only 5% leaving the labour force.
Last edited: