PDA

View Full Version : Barstool economics



Dogma
10-28-2008, 23:53
This is 'crystal' clear...
EXACTLY how the system works (or... FAILS ! ! ! ) whether you like beer or not is immaterial...
Never did I have it explained to me as eloquently and succinctly as the professor explained below!

Bar stool economics:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100..


If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.


The seventh would pay $7.


The eighth would pay $12.


The ninth would pay $18.


The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.


'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'


Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?


How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'


They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.


But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.


So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).


The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).


The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).


The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).


The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).


The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before.


And the first four continued to drink for free.


But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.


'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.


He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'


'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten


times more than I.'


'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.


'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'


'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.


The system exploits the poor!'


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.


The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.


Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen , Ph.D.


Professor of Economics


University of Georgia

Divine Intervention
10-29-2008, 00:08
if we had a flat tax rate system you wouldn't have needed to type that up (copy and paste) ;).
btw this reminded me of the book Freakanomics. a recommended read. v.enjoyable.

esco
10-29-2008, 00:10
What happens if the bar closes down before anyone leaves?

-Z-
10-29-2008, 01:00
If the division of wealth was not so dramatic, then the division of payment would not be so dramatic either. Simple.


I work hard all day and make 80 bucks.

How can another man work so hard to make 8000 bucks in the same day...

is he working 100 times harder than I am?

is he 100 times more valuable?


If we had a limit on wealth division for income, then this would not be an issue. everyone would pay the same.

a hole digger could make 80 bucks a day, while the most important man like a doctor, lawyer, business man, would make 800 a day, not 8000.

if this was the case then we could all pay similar prices,

But the distribution of wealth is a massively steep curve.

lets smooth out the curve a bit.
{
Z

nNiIcCkKoO
10-29-2008, 08:56
It's all about supply and demand. If 5 firms are demanding a highly skilled CEO and the market is only supplying enough for four of them then supply cant match demand, and either supply or prices must increase. Now considering supply cant increase prices must, therefore inflating wages. Where as many people are able to dig a hole, meaning supply is greater than demand, meaning firms can drop wages because the supply is still there.

It explains it all..

Thats how they get such high wages. It's the same as when you pay more for a rare collectors item compared to an item made in china.

Blackwater
10-29-2008, 10:41
It's all about supply and demand. If 5 firms are demanding a highly skilled CEO and the market is only supplying enough for four of them then supply cant match demand, and either supply or prices must increase. Now considering supply cant increase prices must, therefore inflating wages. Where as many people are able to dig a hole, meaning supply is greater than demand, meaning firms can drop wages because the supply is still there.

It explains it all..

Thats how they get such high wages. It's the same as when you pay more for a rare collectors item compared to an item made in china.

Don't talk economics and making sense! It's not fair! We need change! lol good post though

Divine Intervention
10-29-2008, 10:54
lets shift the supply curve outwards instead :cool:

esco
10-29-2008, 10:55
Good example even though it's extremely simplistic. For one it doesn't explain how all money is earned/received by the very wealthiest. Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth is a good indication of where I come from but unfortunately it's not followed except maybe by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

-Z-
10-29-2008, 13:06
It's all about supply and demand. If 5 firms are demanding a highly skilled CEO and the market is only supplying enough for four of them then supply cant match demand, and either supply or prices must increase. Now considering supply cant increase prices must, therefore inflating wages. Where as many people are able to dig a hole, meaning supply is greater than demand, meaning firms can drop wages because the supply is still there.

It explains it all..

Thats how they get such high wages. It's the same as when you pay more for a rare collectors item compared to an item made in china.



You are correct here...

But IE in Canada we could use more doctors, and recently we have been slowly increasing in Doctors (in my area anyway)...

now where i live Doctors are well paid... and they will continue to be well paid because they are greatly needed and important.

the work they do creates sustainable life, even if it does not create temporary (5-20 years) jobs, like billionare and millionare business men and bank officials.

so the demand for doctors is high, and the spully is slowly very slowly increaseing. it takes time to train doctors.

but.... where is the demand for venture capitalists? Why do we want jobs created that will disapear in 5 years leaving us with overpopulated workers, accustomed to a wage they are not skilled enuf to earn?

there is no demand for venture capitalists in the #'s they are. Yet we have so many and they are richer than the doctors.

Z

esco
10-29-2008, 14:45
you should ask Cuba for doctors you **** commies :cursing: