HSC Economics Question Thread

[EEEEEEP]

Well, for US$1, they are getting AU$1.25 - 25 cents more.
Conversely, for AU$1, we are getting US$0.75 - 25 cents less.
the difference either way is the same, so I'd say that the exchange rate has not changed. Therefore A.

There is definitely a change in the exchange (after converting either way).

I disagree with you, after having done the calculations. The calculations for the USD are below. For the AUD
1/1.25 = 0.8 (2019)

0.8 - 0.75 (2020 value) = 0.05. People are getting 5c less per AUD that they convert to USD.   

I agree with Emily's answer.

Value of AUD in 2019 = 1 / 1.25 = 0.8
Value of AUD in 2020 = 0.75

Thus AUD has depreciated against USD, resulting in B

That is correct. I'd also like to add that we can also confirm the answer, by doing the calculation from  the US's perspective.

We can also calculate the that (1/0.75) (indirect quotation for US) is 1.333

1.3333 - 1.25 = 0.08. The US are getting 8 cents more per dollar in 2020.

Thus, US investors and purchasers need to spend less USD to buy AU products.

[S200]

Yeah, you guys are right... Sorry!

[ilikeapples]

Unemployment question: If a scenario such as this was in a MC question "Charlie doesn’t have a job and gave up looking for one due to poor economic conditions in his town"... This would count as hidden unemployment right?  However is he recognised under the unemployment rate - since he is not actively seeking work. Simply put: is hidden unemployment recognised in the unemployment rate and the labour force?

[raylmao]

Unemployment question: If a scenario such as this was in a MC question "Charlie doesn’t have a job and gave up looking for one due to poor economic conditions in his town"... This would count as hidden unemployment right?  However is he recognised under the unemployment rate - since he is not actively seeking work. Simply put: is hidden unemployment recognised in the unemployment rate and the labour force?

im pretty sure it's not.... simply because those who are classified as 'hidden' have given up seeking work.

[CC0073]

Hello
Can someone please explain the answer of this multiple choice?

a call-centre operator has been made redundant as her position has been replaced by an automated system. Identify the most appropriate category for her situation.
The answer says Underemployment; I thought it was structural unemployment.

Thank you heaps!!!

[Brun]

Hello
Can someone please explain the answer of this multiple choice?

a call-centre operator has been made redundant as her position has been replaced by an automated system. Identify the most appropriate category for her situation.
The answer says Underemployment; I thought it was structural unemployment.

Thank you heaps!!!

Mmmhh... I agree that it should be structural unemployment (unemployment due to structural changes such as new technology which results in skills not being in demand in the labour force).

Underemployment means either that they are not working as many hours as they would like, but are still employed; or someone is working in a job that does not fully use their skills (e.g. a person with a commerce degree working in a fast food chain). The situation described here really does not fit either meaning (because she is unemployed not employed in a job without enough hours or use of her skills).

Was this an exam created by a school? Perhaps, it would be best to clarify whether there was some mistake made in the answers.

[CC0073]

Mmmhh... I agree that it should be structural unemployment (unemployment due to structural changes such as new technology which results in skills not being in demand in the labour force).

Underemployment means either that they are not working as many hours as they would like, but are still employed; or someone is working in a job that does not fully use their skills (e.g. a person with a commerce degree working in a fast food chain). The situation described here really does not fit either meaning (because she is unemployed not employed in a job without enough hours or use of her skills).

Was this an exam created by a school? Perhaps, it would be best to clarify whether there was some mistake made in the answers.

I found it in a trials paper from another school, but you're right, i suspected that it was a mistake in the answer as well, except I wasn't sure.
I didn't know underemployment could mean someone not using their skills before, so thanks so much for answering!!!
Cheers!

[varun.amin]

Hi,

I've got a question that I'm unsure how to answer from a trial paper, it's attached below. Could someone please let me know how to work this out? Thanks in advance.

[Bells_123]

I had a quick question wondering if the NAIRU and 'natural rate of unemployment' are the same thing (the level of unemployment without cyclical factors and inflation is stable) ?

Thank you!

[emilyygeorgexx]

I had a quick question wondering if the NAIRU and 'natural rate of unemployment' are the same thing (the level of unemployment without cyclical factors and inflation is stable) ?

Thank you!

I guess the concept behind each is quite similar. From my understanding and because the definition is just fresh in my head because I had my trial yesterday:

* The natural rate of unemployment is the the level of unemployment in the economy where there is no cyclical unemployment, therefore only structural, frictional, etc. Under the RBA Act 1959, full employment in the economy is said to be 5-6% unemployment

* The NAIRU is the level of unemployment in the economy that can be maintained without inflationary pressures occurring

This is just how I see it, wouldn't mind other opinions!

[Fergus6748]

I had a quick question wondering if the NAIRU and 'natural rate of unemployment' are the same thing (the level of unemployment without cyclical factors and inflation is stable) ?

Thank you!

Going on from Emily

I guess the concept behind each is quite similar. From my understanding and because the definition is just fresh in my head because I had my trial yesterday:

* The natural rate of unemployment is the the level of unemployment in the economy where there is no cyclical unemployment, therefore only structural, frictional, etc. Under the RBA Act 1959, full employment in the economy is said to be 5-6% unemployment

* The NAIRU is the level of unemployment in the economy that can be maintained without inflationary pressures occurring

This is just how I see it, wouldn't mind other opinions!

The NAIRU is just a inflation target that the government aims to either reach or lower. The natural rate of unemployment is the actual rate and is what we quote. When the unemployment rate is above the government will use macro and micro policies to bring within NAIRU and if it is inside then the government will try to bring down NAIRU as they want lower unemployment. However the risk is that when the unemployment rate is below NAIRU then we are at an unsustainable rate of unemployment that causes inflationary pressures.

That's my understanding at least, hope this helps!!

[wlam]

Hi!!

Can someone please explain to me about the recent trends in unemployment in the past few years (preferably after 2011)? Can someone discuss the reasons for these trends like the Mining Boom II etc.

 Thanks
 

[Brun]

Hi!!

Can someone please explain to me about the recent trends in unemployment in the past few years (preferably after 2011)? Can someone discuss the reasons for these trends like the Mining Boom II etc.

 Thanks
 

Hi,

These are my notes on the unemployment trends of Australia:

•   Australia began experiencing higher unemployment rates in the mid 1970s, after recording very low unemployment rates in the 1960s and 1970s. The rate of unemployment peaked in the early 1990s due to structural changes and the 1990-91 recession – the unemployment rate was 10.7% in 1992-93 (the highest since the Great Depression of the 1930s).

•   Following the 1991 recession, there was a steady decline in Australia’s unemployment rate during the consecutive years of economic growth.

•   Unemployment fell to a record low of 4.2% in 2007-8, during the peak of the Mining Boom. 

•   In 2008-09, the GFC had a major impact on the Australian labour market, with unemployment rising to 5.8% in 2008-9 due to low growth of 1.7% in the economy. However, there was a quick recovery and unemployment fell to 5.1% in 2009-10 due to the continuing Mining Boom.

•   The Mining Boom ended around 2013, leading to unemployment rising to over 6%.
 
•   In March 2018, the unemployment rate was 5.5% due to a record 17 consecutive months of job growth. Most recent stats show that unemployment is now at 5.4% in July 2018 (due to continuing steady job growth and a slight decline in the participation rate). \

[wlam]

Thanks!!

Hi,

These are my notes on the unemployment trends of Australia:

•   Australia began experiencing higher unemployment rates in the mid 1970s, after recording very low unemployment rates in the 1960s and 1970s. The rate of unemployment peaked in the early 1990s due to structural changes and the 1990-91 recession – the unemployment rate was 10.7% in 1992-93 (the highest since the Great Depression of the 1930s).

•   Following the 1991 recession, there was a steady decline in Australia’s unemployment rate during the consecutive years of economic growth.

•   Unemployment fell to a record low of 4.2% in 2007-8, during the peak of the Mining Boom. 

•   In 2008-09, the GFC had a major impact on the Australian labour market, with unemployment rising to 5.8% in 2008-9 due to low growth of 1.7% in the economy. However, there was a quick recovery and unemployment fell to 5.1% in 2009-10 due to the continuing Mining Boom.

•   The Mining Boom ended around 2013, leading to unemployment rising to over 6%.
 
•   In March 2018, the unemployment rate was 5.5% due to a record 17 consecutive months of job growth. Most recent stats show that unemployment is now at 5.4% in July 2018 (due to continuing steady job growth and a slight decline in the participation rate). \

[ilikeapples]

Could someone explain the connection between large factor endowments and relatively low population in Australia, and how these lead to our savings-investment gap. Thanks