Richard Wolff Debunks the Myth of Higher Hourly Pay

I decided to take a look at hourly pay,
the average pay per hour that most Americans who are on a wage system get.
Back in 1973 is when I started. That’s a long time ago, friend,
almost half a century. The average wage in this country was $4.03 an hour.
Okay. So, I did a little calculation that we economists do.
And I said, let’s take a look at what you could get for $4.03 an hour
in 1973 and adjust it to 2018, the last year that we have numbers
for. And I adjusted. How much money would you need per hour in 2018 to be able to
buy the same bundle of goods that you could buy for $4.03 in 1973.
And I came up with the answer. You’d need today an average (ready?) of $23.68 an hour.
That would be the average wage you’d need for a worker to be able
to buy, on average, as much today as he or she could in 1973. $23.68.
Well what is the average wage of the United States in
2018? You needed $23.68 to be at the same place you were fifty years ago. You know
what the average is today? $22.65. That’s right. The average wage in America today, in
terms of what it can buy, is less than what it was 50 years ago. So if you’re
feeling pinched, if you’re feeling your economic situation is difficult, if
you’ve had to adjust your family because living on one person’s wage simply will
not give you a decent lifestyle, so that your wife, or your elderly parents, or
your children have got to go to work now too, you’re right. You’re
living what has happened. But it’s even worse because over the last 50
years that the real wage of what you could buy with your income has gone
nowhere (actually gone down a bit), over that time your productivity (that’s what
your labour adds per hour to what your employer produces and sells) that’s gone
up somewhere in the neighborhood of, somewhere between 25 and 35 percent. So
let’s be real clear. Productivity, your output, what your brains and muscles add
to your employers materials goods and services to sell, that’s gone steadily up.
Productivity measures what you the worker give to your employer, by means of
your work. Wages are what the employer gives you for your work. So let’s review
what the employer has been giving you for the last 50 years has gone nowhere.
But what you give to the employer has zoomed up by a third. That’s why there’s
a gap between rich and poor in the United States. Working people, their
incomes have gone nowhere. But the employer class, a small minority in this
country, has made out like the bandits that capitalism makes them be.

Paul Krugman Explains Why Cutting Taxes for the Wealthy Doesn’t Work

-I have to ask you this. As an economist, I imagine
people all the time — friends, family —
ask you to give them investment advice, ask you
to predict the future. -Yeah.
-Yeah. And what do you tell them
when they ask you that? -I tell them I don’t know, and nobody else knows either.
[ Laughter ] -And you have a Nobel Prize
for this, and yet, that is the basis of it.
-Yeah. -Yeah.
-Most of the time, it’s — you know, it’s
just not that easy, right? -What is it about economics that makes it so hard
to predict? -Okay, first of all,
think about weather. Weather prediction is,
you know, so-so because it’s an incredibly
complex system, but at least it’s physics.
-Right. -And economics is all of that
plus it’s about people. So it’s just —
it’s just inherently — most of the time —
you know, once in a while, we can see something
that’s really clear, i.e. housing bubble. Okay, that was crazy, and something bad was going to
happen when it burst. But most of the time,
it’s this enormous system. You know, there’s a rule,
everything in the economy affects everything else
in at least two ways. And so, being able to tell you
whether GDP growth will be 1.5 or 2.5 percent
next year, nobody can do that. -The president seems pretty
confident that he can tell you exactly
how it’s going to go. -Uh, yeah. Uh…
[ Laughter ] -We’ll get to him.
We’ll get to him. -We’ll get to him, okay. -So this —
“Arguing with Zombies,” you’ve talked in your columns
over the years about these zombie ideas,
meaning that they are ideas that will not die in regards
to economics. And the two that keep
coming back are climate change denialism,
and more importantly, cutting taxes for the wealthy. -Yeah, not more importantly
but more commonly. So the big political zombie
in America is the belief that cutting taxes
on the wealthy is magic and will pay for itself. And it has a success rate of
exactly zero after many — but nonetheless, is basically
official doctrine for the Republican Party. -Now this is a situation
where President Trump and the Republican Congress
cut taxes for the wealthy, they went out on television, they told us
it would pay for itself. It has not paid for itself. If anything, the deficit
is ballooning. And yet, it doesn’t seem
as though they will pay any political cost
for this. -Yeah. And that’s a lesson,
I think, for everybody. You know, we’ve had
a long history now, several decades in which
Democrats, when in power, try to be all responsible
and get no credit for it. And Republicans just gleefully
run up huge bills, and I got to say,
maybe, you know, next time there’s
a Democratic president, she or he should be prepared to run some deficits
for a good cause. -Yes. Well, that would be
the difference, right? The idea is that
with progressive ideas, you can run deficits
and actually use that money to pay for things like
social services, as opposed to putting it back
in the pockets of the rich. -Yeah, I mean, think —
Trump has added about $300 billion
a year to the deficit. We can actually put
a fairly precise number on that. Think of what America would
look like if President Obama had been allowed to spend
$300 billion a year on infrastructure, right?
-Yeah. -$300 billion a year. We would be — you know,
we wouldn’t be stuck in that one tunnel under the
Hudson River all the time. -Right.
-And so — And what we’re doing now
is we’re running these big deficits for no —
you know, to basically just to cut taxes
on corporations, and the corporations aren’t
even using the money. They’re just using it
to buy back stock. So the deficits themselves don’t
do a whole lot of harm, but think of what we could be
doing with that money. -Things that would actually
be multi-generations ahead still paying benefits.
-Yeah. I mean, the funny thing, the tax cuts don’t pay
for themselves. Child nutrition, child —
health care for children, those do pay for themselves,
because they lead — in the long run,
they lead to healthier, more productive adults who
end up paying more taxes. So it’s actually —
we’ve got the wrong — you know, we’re doing voodoo
on the wrong front here. -Do you think —
how many billionaires, how many Republicans
in good faith believe this idea that tax cuts will pay
for themselves? -That’s a hard question to
answer because people are really good at double think.
-Yeah. -Right? People manage to
convince themselves, even if something
is patently false, most people don’t manage — most people don’t go around
saying to themselves, you know, twirling
their mustache, and saying, “I’m being evil.” Though I think some of them do. -Yeah, yeah, yeah.
-Mitch McConnell probably does. -I could name five.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. -But the — but the — I think that pretty much
they know — at some level, they know
that it’s false. They have to know
that it’s false. It’s just — there are
no success stories. And so, it’s just — but it’s
tremendously convenient. -Has this — you talk about
how this was something that was very much the case
during the Bush presidency, but it has mutated
into something far more bold than it was then.
-Yeah. I mean — well, you know,
each successive Republican president
magically has managed to make his predecessor look
good in the rearview mirror. So we look now
at the Bush years, and the thing was that Bush — a little business about lying us
into war and that sort of thing, but aside from that,
they were — -It’s just that thing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. -They were a little —
yeah. They were a little bit careful. They didn’t actually make
outlandish claims about tax cuts paying for themselves. They came up with other
rationales. You know, the government’s
collecting too much money, or we just won a war,
so, great, let’s cut taxes. They weren’t as blatant. So the — the zombification
of the Republican Party has been an ongoing process. And it gets a little bit worse with each successive

January Market Overview

Thanks for your company for the monthly
wrap my name is Jessica Amir, I’m with Bell Direct. Well what a phenomenal month
and start to the year we’ve had the Aussies share market is up 5.2% that’s
if you look at the benchmark ASX200 a whopping start to the year
with the broader All Ordinaries of about 5% followed by the small
Ordinaries lift of over 3% looking at the ASX200 alone, it’s been the
best yearly start to markets since 1983 with the market hitting that new
record all-time high last week of 7145
points meaning the market was 7% higher year to date but since then
we’ve had investors locking in some profits amid the coronavirus outbreak
however sentiment does remain strong across markets for a couple of very
important reasons, one better than expected
Aussie economic data less unemployment high inflation both readings closer to
where the central bank want them to be better than expected US economic data
also helped with their rates remaining on hold in the US with the Federal
Reserve chair saying the labor market remains strong an employment
participation is continuing to rise an earnings season in the US is also
helping keeping the major indices in record neighborhood as 70% of the
top 500 companies that have reported have beat forecasts plus Apple shares
hit a new a record all-time high after reporting stronger than expected results
while of course don’t forget that US-China trade deal the first part of
that deal phase 1 was inked this month keeping sentiment high while the Brexit
is going ahead as expected so let’s look at the ASX200 it hit that new all-time
high last week so when will it hit another one or we don’t know but just
looking at the historical numbers it tells us that markets pretty much reach a
all-time high on average every 19 days after an all-time-high has been reached
that’s if you look at the numbers from 1989 excluding the dry spell from 2007
to 2019 the numbers also say about 93% of the time a new all-time
high was set within the next month but what about the coronavirus will despite
what you read in the headlines we had a look at the virus outbreaks and
epidemics since the 1980s they’ve all had varying impacts on markets but this
chart shows us from the HIV outbreak in 1981 to SARS in 2003 to swine flu Zika
and Ebola all these events caused short-term impacts on markets regardless
of what was going on many other factors to consider of course but this is just
looking at the numbers what we also know about coronavirus is it’s had an impact
on Chinese and tourism related stocks particularly as China is a largest
contributor to global growth and Australian tourism as well we’ve seen
corporate Travel Management lose about 13% this month flight center down
about 9% Webjet also taking a hit with companies like these exposed to the
Chinese consumer really being questioned by investors in particular with their
earnings sectors that have been standing tall since the virus broke out
healthcare, telcos, utilities, RIT’s big dividend paying stocks plus gold stocks
as well let’s look at the best performing sectors in January where all
sectors joined in the rally healthcare of the most 13% followed by tech
stocks up 10% energy the only lagging that remained in positive territory
though really succumbing to pressure from of the oil price as supply and
demand concerns both weigh, meantime one of the standouts in the healthcare sector
was the blood plasma and vaccine makers CSL also a top pick for reporting season
according to Morgan Stanley with a price target $350 CSL shares closed at yet
another all-time high as well on Thursday $319 early in the day in fact and it looks like it
could become the largest stock on the Aussie share market taking the thunder
away from CBI plus there also whispers mounting that CSL is developing a
vaccine cure or some type of treatment for the coronavirus as particularly
this company CSL is the world’s leader in vaccines and
antibodies known as immunoglobulins. What other big stocks were on the move well
plenty Polynovo continued to shine rising 48% to another
all-time high $2.94 as its skin repair technology developed by
the CSIRO continued to roll out across the globe with its treatment now being
used in the UK Germany and Switzerland consensus also expects Polynovo
could make a profit or break even for the first time this year Afterpay also
in the lead, up 30% hitting a new all-time high after closing off their
share purchase plan going the other way aerial imaging company Nearmap fell the
hardest 28% after announcing they lost a key US customer but remember this
company was one of the market darlings last year up almost 70% and
Treasury Wine Estates shares lost about 90% after cutting the full-year
growth of forecasts amid a challenging U.S wine market and what to watch next
week and beyond on the economic horizon well in the U.S on Friday, economic data
of GDP is out with expectations that growth will remain at an annualized pace
of 2.1% in the fourth quarter of last year as for what to expect for the
rest of the year well the IMF expects growth to drop from 2.3% clocked
last year to 2% this year. Over in Europe the European Union gave the nod for the
UK to leave the EU meaning from Monday next week no UK lawmakers will be in
European Parliament and back home on Tuesday the RBA is not expected to cut
rates and it’s expected to keep the rate, the central interest rate at 0.75% as two important factors employment and
prices are getting closer to where the RBA wants them meaning the economy is
strengthening its muscle inflation let’s remember rose 1.8% year-on-year
in the December quarter and food inflation in particular is expected to
remain high for the first half of this year on the back of the bushfire and
drought impacts and don’t forget last but not least confession season
officially kicks off next week so tune in each and every day we’ll cover what
you need to be across in the main companies that report with news in 60
seconds and don’t forget to tune in to our daily market updates on Bell Direct
TV or on YouTube as well plenty to sink your teeth into. That’s it from me
take care, stay safe and I’ll see you next time bye for now.

How Does Inflation ACTUALLY Work?

If you have a conversation with your grandparents
about the price of anything, they’ll most likely say something to the effect of, “When
I was your age, I’d buy a bottle of Coke for six cents!”, or perhaps, “I bought
a house with a single entry-level job!” And that seems to be the memory of lots of
older people as they reminisce about their youth. It’s no secret that what a dollar can get
you has changed significantly over time. And these price changes aren’t exclusive
to decades ago. In January 2017, a whole chicken cost an average
of $1.42 a pound, according to figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Statistics. In January 2018, the price of that same chicken
rose by nine cents, or 6.3 percent. So what gives? Why would the same exact thing cost more at
a later time? Inflation is the rate of an increase in prices
for goods and services in an economy over a set time period. When the prices of goods rise, each unit of
currency has less purchasing power than before, so naturally, fewer goods can be attained. Inflation in the United States is primarily
tracked using the Consumer Price Index — or CPI — a tool developed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, which takes into account the pricing data for thousands of goods across the country. The BBC explained how the CPI helps us understand
inflation and changing prices this way: “If CPI is three percent, this means that, on
average, the price of products and services we buy is three percent higher than a year
earlier. Or, in other words, we would need to spend
three percent more to buy the same things we bought 12 months ago.” Conversely, there’s what’s called deflation,
which, as you guessed it, is when prices decrease because there are more goods available than
the amount of money circulating around to buy them. But not so fast! While prices dropping sounds like a dream
in Budget Land, deflation has been known to increase the likelihood of a depression or
a recession, so it’s also monitored closely and stopped in its tracks. The “why” behind inflation can be broken
down into three reasons — each of which will shed light on specific types. The first is when governments print more money. Governments will often do this to stimulate
the economy and create more jobs. More money can be put into circulation by
literally printing more of the physical money or by increasing government debt. A real-life example of inflation being caused
by the printing of more money happened during the Civil War era when the Confederacy printed
$20 million worth of treasury notes. To backtrack a bit, when the war started in
1861, one gold dollar cost one Confederate dollar. In just four months, the inflation rate rose
to five percent, and that number became a whopping 140 percent by 1863. To give you a better idea of how high that
was, inflation rates are typically two to three percent every year in contemporary times. What happened during this era, though, is
an example of hyperinflation, or inflation that’s increasing at an extremely high rate,
although this example doesn’t come close to what we’ll describe later. Hang tight. Another type of inflation is called cost-push
inflation. This is when the cost of maintaining a business
rises and then customers have to then pay more to help the business sustain itself. The reason behind the rising cost of maintaining
a business vary but are numerous — sometimes the cost of materials a business needs might
increase, employees might be asking for higher wages or land rents are getting higher. The last cause of inflation we’ll mention
is demand-pull inflation, or when the number of people who want a good or service increases
and supply isn’t increasing at the same rate. This sometimes happens when people are getting
richer and therefore have more disposable income. Consumers could also find themselves with
more to spend on goods and services when the government cuts taxes, which could cause this
type of inflation. So, who are the key players behind making
sure inflation doesn’t get too — inflated? These trusty masterminds can be found at the
Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank who’s main purpose is controlling inflation
and preventing a recession. And the Reserve has a major say in the state
of the nation’s smaller banks — 80 percent of the 6,000 banks around the country are
part of a holding company, and this gives the Reserve a peek into the financial standing
of the country as a whole, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s website. Several other countries have a central bank,
too, like the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank of England or the Swiss National Bank, to
name a few. A June 2019 article from laid
out the various ways the U.S.’s Federal Reserve helps control inflation. One is through the use of contractionary monetary
policy, which enforces a reduction in government spending—specifically deficit spending. Governments enact deficit spending in the
hopes of encouraging economic growth. This spending would go towards medical supplies
and buildings, for example, which would then house businesses that’d hire people. Contractionary monetary policy can also be
implemented using what’s called open market operations, or when the Reserve sells securities
in the form of Treasury notes from member banks. When the Reserve sells these securities, banks
are then forced to buy them, reducing their capital and this gives banks less to lend
out to people. The final result of this is higher interest
rates on loans. The chain of events that make up open market
operations help slow economic growth and keep inflation on a tight leash. Next, the Reserve can also raise the reserve
requirement, or the amount of cash banks need to have in their possession at the end of
each day, which keeps money further out of circulation. The Reserve can also raise its discount rate,
or the amount it charges banks to borrow money in order to meet reserve requirements before
closing each night. Apart from contractionary monetary policy,
the Reserve also manages inflation by limiting the amount of credit allowed into the market
by using liquidity, or the degree with which money is available for investment or spending. This would make it more costly for people
to take out a loan. Phew! You get a huge pat on the back for following
along with that jargon-filled economics lesson. Ironically enough, the most important tool
for controlling inflation — according to Ben Bernanke, former chairman of the Reserve
— has nothing to do with this policy. He argued that it’s actually most important
to make sure people don’t anticipate inflation and then buy more of anything at a lower price,
because that, in itself, can spur inflation. He argued that it becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy in this way. A cosmic theory when talking about something
so concrete like money, huh? We’ve painted a clear picture so far of
how inflation works in the U.S., but hyperinflation, when inflation rises by 50 percent or higher
per month, has historically played out — oftentimes catastrophically — across the globe. Venezuela and its mammoth of an economic crisis
will serve as our most recent example of this. So far, the largest amount of inflation we’ve
mentioned happened during the Civil War. That pales in comparison to Venezuela’s
situation — the inflation rate increased by 53,798,500 percent between April 2016 and
2019, according to Venezuela’s central bank. The International Monetary Fund projected
it would increase by 10 million percent by the end of 2019. We can use coffee to better explain what it’s
been like for the Venezuelans in the midst of this unrest: At the time of an August 2018
Forbes article about Venezuela’s hyperinflation, the average price of a cup of coffee had risen
to more than 2 million bolivars. That’d come out to more than 10 U.S. dollars
for just a single cup of joe. You can probably relate to the feeling of
spending a bit too much on coffee one morning, but this is the norm for Venezuelans, not
an outlier — not to mention that the coffee cost 1,400,000 bolivars a week before the
article and 190,000 that April. Venezuela’s hyperinflation is a symptom
of a much larger and seemingly uncontrollable economic problem, but it wasn’t always like
this. At one time, Venezuela, which was known for
its fruitful oil reserves, boasted wealth and stability. When Hugo Chavez became president in 1999,
oil prices went up and the government all of a sudden had more spending money. Then the labor strike at the oil company Petroleos
de Venezuela, which lasted from December 2002 to February 2003, had serious economic repercussions
— gross domestic product, or the monetary value of what a country produces — fell 27
percent during the first couple months of 2003. Chavez attempted to stop the decrease in the
value of the bolivar, but it just led to more problems. A currency peg, import controls, subsidies
for food and consumer goods — all of which happened after the strike — set up a scenario
for inevitable future inflation, according to Forbes. Fast forward to today, and Venezuelans are
still largely dependent on the government for goods and services, stores don’t have
what people need and black market prices for these items have increased. And the situation continues to be bleak: According
to the International Monetary Fund’s official website, the inflation rate is currently at
500,000 at the onset of 2020 and the writing of this script. Almost 7,000 miles away, Zimbabwe presents
another example of just how absurd and uncontrollable inflation has historically played out. Zimbabwe’s unrest can be traced back to
the late 1990’s when land reforms were introduced, some of which meant land was redistributed
and went from white farmers to black ones. They weren’t experienced enough to handle
these new farms and thus weren’t able to produce the amount of food necessary. In the year 2000, Robert Mugabe, its president
at the time, saw that his country was in economic turmoil and people were starving on the streets. The government mostly felt compelled to print
more money because of the war with Congo that was taking place at the time, and they needed
more to pay the soldiers. But other contributing factors included too
much national debt and not enough output as well as an overall lack of faith in the Zimbabwean
government. Back to Mugabe. The obscene amounts of money weren’t getting
invested properly, so there wasn’t enough production of new goods, and the purchasing
power of that money decreased. The next eight years were hit by inflation
to an astronomical degree, with results that make it hard to believe this happened in real
life. By 2001, there was a 112 percent increase
in prices per year. By 2006, it’d skyrocketed to 1, 218 percent
per year. To give more numbers to explain this, inflation
rose every day about 98 percent, so the price of anything would double in a matter of 24
hours. This all came to an end, thankfully, when
Mugabe officially legalized transactions in foreign currencies and the Zimbabwean currency
was rendered nonexistent in 2008. Want to know what are the best jobs you can
find that are also high paying? Watch this ‘Surprisingly High Paying Jobs’
video! And as always, don’t forget to like share
and subscribe! See you next time!

CAREERS IN BA – MA,P.Hd,Researcher,Teacher,Lecturer,Job Opportunities,Salary Package

Hello all this is Raisa George from Welcome to our video channel on jobs and careers Today I will be talking about the career opportunities in BA Besides commerce and science, arts is another
major stream of subjects that is offered since high school. Arts is a comprehensive stream
in itself that offers innumerable future career options to students. Subjects such as foreign
languages, English literature, history, sociology, economics, and psychology are the core subjects
of this stream. Securing a bachelor’s degree in this stream is highly lucrative as one
learns to deal with music, literatures, histories, social sciences and cultures of numerous societal
aspects. Studying arts can be valuable as it equips
students for all aspects of life. A degree in arts can help individuals to discover their
interests, abilities, and talents, and develop to the best potential levels. As an arts student,
you can not only secure prestigious jobs in India, but can also look for lucrative career
options in foreign countries. This is because BA offers you to choose specialization in
almost 25 major subjects. In India students can select their core subject after passing
their 10 + 2. If you select arts in your high school, then you even become eligible to prestigious
government exams such as IAS, IPS, and other kinds of government and civil services. Major subjects that one can choose in order to secure a Bachelors of Arts degree are sociology,
anthropology, archaeology, Asian studies, language, political science, English literature,
hindi literature, economics, law, psychology, and biological sciences. The number of courses
offered under arts subject, clearly portrays that this is a versatile stream that can help
students to gain prestigious career gains in future. In order to become eligible to
this degree course, it is essential for students to obtain a 10 + 2 pass degree. Also, it is
required to have first division in main subjects in order to get admitted to a reputed university. A Bachelor’s of Arts degree can be a ‘pass’ degree or ‘honors’ degree. The pass degree
is a full time degree that does not offer any kind of specialization to the students.
An honors degree on the other hand, is a degree tend to impart subject specialization. It
is essential for students to score more than 80% in order to get admission to the Bachelors
of Art, Honors program of a reputed institute. In case students are not able to get through
a full time degree course, they can then go for the distance learning program offered
by few well known institutes. The BA (general) course consists of 24 credits,
each credit having an aggregate value of 100 marks. It includes not only theoretical training,
but also imparts practical training to the students. In case individuals intend to secure
a BA degree from foreign nation then the admission and eligibility criteria may vary for different
countries. Countries such as Canada, Japan, Scotland, Russia, United States, New Zealand,
Norway, Australia, and Singapore can be looked up to in order to get qualified as a bachelors
as well as masters of Arts. In India, there are numerous universities
that are known globally for offering BA degree. Calcutta University, Mumbai University, Loyola
University, Chennai; Indira Gandhi National College, Delhi University, St. Joseph College,
Bangalore; and Christ University, Bangalore are the names in the list. Besides these,
there are other universities as well that offer both BA pass and BA honors degree to
students. Obtaining a BA degree opens up a comprehensive range of prospects for the students
in advertising, journalism, marketing, politics, management, police force, administration,
psychology, teaching, and more. Once they are able to gain a degree in BA,
individuals can then look for lucrative employment areas like:
• Broadcasting • Advertising
• Civil Services • Policing
• Law • Business Process Outsourcing Units
• Community service • Film Direction and Editing
• Printing and Graphics Industry • International Relations
• Professional Writing • Library and Information Science
• Public planning • Public Administration
• Professional writing • Religious studies
• Social work • Teaching
Securing a job in some fields is easy, but for others it is mandatory to clear the yearly
held competitive exams. The remuneration earned by arts students is very good, but may vary
depending on the employment area selected by them. In order to clear the entrance test
for civil services, it is essential for students to prepare in advance. There are numerous
kinds of competitive exams held for students with a BA degree. In order to know everything
about them, individuals can log
to we will be back with such more videos so stay connected with us do not forget to hit the subscribe button below

CAREERS IN MA – BA,P.Hd,Researcher,Teachers,Lecturers,Job Opportunities,Salary Package

HELLO all,this is Raisa George from to our video channel on jobs and careers.Today i ll be talking about the career opportunities in MA. Masters of Arts or MA is a postgraduate degree
program in Arts stream. Not only universities of India, but even of the foreign nation offer
this course. The overall duration of this course is two years which is non-extendable
if an individual opts for a regular, full-time MA program. Besides this, students also have
the option to opt for correspondence MA program if they are not able to score too good in
their bachelor’s degree. The MA program is attainable in numerous subjects
including multiple languages such as English, Hindi, foreign language and more. The entire
two years course is taught in 2 semesters, each having certain numbers of papers. One
has to certify successful in all papers in order to acquire the Master’s Degree. Besides
these papers, there are seminars, lectures, and practical assessment also organized that
has to be cleared to gain the level in hand. Students who love studying for a longer period
and who want to gain post graduate specialization in their respective field can go for this
course. Just like a post-graduate degree in science
and commerce, even a Masters of Arts program is extremely beneficial for students. It is
because it offers them with a strong academic background that can help them to secure bright
future ahead. Achieving such degree can help them to get hired to prestigious jobs not
only in India, but even in abroad. Successfully completing the MA course also makes one eligible
for the doctoral program. Once completing the MA and Ph.D. in arts, one can then become
a researcher and can even work as a head of the department on the desired subject.
The specialization offered by Masters of Arts subject depends on the program that a student
selects for the bachelor’s program. The varieties of specialties provided in the Master’s
program are: • Master of Arts in Education
• Masters of Fine Arts • Master of Arts in Philosophy
• Master of Arts in History • Master of Arts in Economics
• Masters of Arts in English, Hindi, or any other language
• Master of Arts in Music • Master of Arts in Archeology
• Master of Arts in Public Administration • Master of Arts in Psychology, and more.
The candidate who applies for a master’s program must have completed the bachelor’s
course in the respective subject, with Honors. Some universities even organize an entrance
test to get admission to the MA program. After the exam, the universities may even hold a
personal interview and even a group discussion. Once the candidate passes all three stages,
he can then get admission to the desired school or college. Some top ranking universities
in India that offer MA degree program are Jawaharlal Nehru University, Alagappa University,
Delhi University, Assam University, Punjab University, and more. There are also universities
such as IGNOU, SCDL, and more that offer correspondence courses in this field.
Individuals possessing a Master of Arts degree can have bright future ahead. They can look
for career avenues in numerous areas after securing their degree. Economics, Archaeology,
Psychology, Political Science, Public Relation, Sociology, Journalism, Philosophy, History,
English Language, and etc. are the areas in which one can get a job after an MA degree.
From teachers to college lecturers, corporate professionals to industry leaders, bank professionals
to the public administration officer, one can look for multiple opportunities in this
field. Here are some top-notch employment areas that students can look up to after completing
their MA program: • Business Consultants
• Administrative Officers • Finance Managers
• Marketing Managers • Production managers
• Teachers • Lecturers
• Development and Research Managers • Social Worker
• Labor Management Relations Specialist • Public Administrator
• Economists • Film Making and Direction
• Music Teacher • Language Expert and more.
Individuals who successfully achieve a master’s degree in arts can get reputed jobs not only
in the private sector, but also in public and government sector. The remuneration offered
to them during their initial job duration is around 20,000 to 25,000 INR. It may also
be around 10,000 to 15,000 INR depending on the specialization chosen. But with experience,
the remuneration increases to a great extent. Students who wish to certify some prestigious
entrance exams, after completing their MA course, may need to have detailed information
about it. For this, they can log on to the best online job career portal will be back with more such videos so stay connected with us and do not forget to hit the subscribe button below.

Who Pays the Tax?

♪ [music] ♪ – [Tyler] In the last lecture,
we showed that the legal incidence of a tax does not determine
the economic incidence. In this lecture,
we’re going to talk about how the economic incidence
of taxes actually is determined. Who bears the burden of a tax? Here is the rule for the economic
incidence of a tax. The more elastic side
of the market will pay a smaller share of the tax,
a smaller burden. Similarly, the less elastic side
of the market or rather the more inelastic side
of the market will pay a greater share of the tax. So more elastic
pays a smaller share, less elastic pays a greater share. I’m going to show you this
in a couple of diagrams and then give you the intuition
for why it’s the case. Let’s suppose
we can’t remember the rule. Is it the more elastic side
which bears the smaller share of the tax or the greater share
of the tax? Say we can’t quite remember.
Well, no problem. Let’s just draw the diagram
and read it off as it happens. For instance, let’s draw a diagram which has a pretty elastic
demand curve and relatively speaking
a pretty inelastic supply curve. Here’s the price
when there’s no tax. Now let’s look at what happens
when there is a tax and we’ll use our wedge method. Here’s the tax and the height
of the wedge gives us the amount of the tax. What do we do? We drive this wedge
into the diagram until the top of it
hits the demand curve and the bottom of it
hits the supply curve and then we just read
the answer off our diagram. Point B, this tells us the price
paid by the buyer. Point D, this tells us the price
received by the seller. Let’s compare. When there was no tax,
the price paid by the buyer was at A, and with the tax
the price to the buyer goes up a little bit to point B. The buyer isn’t paying much
of a higher price. On the other hand the seller
is receiving a lot less. In this case, when demand
is more elastic than supply, the demanders pay
a smaller share of the tax and the suppliers
pay a larger share. Therefore we can just read
off the diagram what happens when demand
is more elastic than supply. You don’t have
to remember the rule, you don’t have to memorize it
because I’m going to give you some intuition to make it easy
in just a moment. You simply have to draw the diagram
and be able to read the answer off the curves. Let’s look at another case. In this case, we’ve drawn
a supply curve which is very inelastic
and a demand curve which is less elastic
than the supply curve. Once again we’re going
to take our tax wedge, we’re going to push it
into the diagram and what happens? You can see it right here. We just have to read it
off the diagram. Now we see that compared
to when there was no tax, the price to the buyer
has gone up a lot and the price to the sellers
has gone down by just a little bit. When the supply
is more elastic than demand, buyers pay the greater share
of the tax, that is the price to the buyer
goes up more than the price
to the sellers goes down. The buyers pay more of the tax
when the supply curve is more elastic. Let’s give some intuition. You can always get the right answer
by drawing the curves. And let’s consider the intuition
for why that’s the case. So here’s the intuition
for remembering the rule. Think about elasticity
as a kind of escape. The side of the market
which is the more elastic can escape the tax more easily. Why does that makes sense?
Remember what elastic demand means. It means that demanders
have good substitutes for the taxed good
and so they can escape the tax. When the tax is high,
the demanders are going to say, “We’re just going to go buy
the substitutes. We have plenty
of good substitutes.” On the other hand,
think about what it means when the demand is inelastic. It means that there
are no good substitutes so it’s hard to escape the tax. What about the supply side,
elastic supply? Well, that means the resources
which are used to produce the taxed good,
they can easily be moved to other industries. The resources
can move around easily. If you try to tax the industry
a lot then the land, the capital, the workers in that industry
which were used to produce the good,
they’re just going to flow to other industries
and so the suppliers can relatively easily
escape the tax. On the other hand,
if supply is inelastic that means the resources used
to produce this good, they really can only be used
to produce this good. They’re fixed, they’re hard
to move around, and those factors
are not that useful for producing other goods,
so that makes it difficult for the suppliers
when the supply curve is inelastic. That means it’s difficult
for the suppliers to escape the tax. What if the demanders
and the suppliers are both pretty elastic? Well, here’s the thing. Somebody has to pay the tax,
both sides can’t escape the tax at least if the good is going
to be bought and sold, therefore the burden is determined
by the relative elasticities. It’s about which side has it easier
to escape the tax and that side will pay
less of the tax. The side which is less elastic,
they’re going to pay more of the tax
because that side finds it harder to escape the tax. So let’s do an application,
say social security taxes. Last time we showed
that the legal incidence of social security taxes
has no bearing on the economic incidence,
but we didn’t say what the economic incidence
actually is. So let’s do that now. We’re going to have the price
of labor up here, the wage, and the quantity
of labor down here. The whole question
now boils down to is the demand for labor,
more elastic than the supply of labor
or vice versa? Think about the demanders
of labor, businesses, what substitutes
for labor do they have? If the price of labor goes up,
what can those businesses do? What about the supply
of labor, the workers? If their wage goes down,
what can they do? If you think about it,
I think you’ll see that for most workers,
especially full time workers, they don’t really have a lot
of good substitutes for work. Most workers need some kind of job. Even if their wage goes down,
they’re going to continue to work because they need to pay the bills. On the other hand,
the demanders of labor if the wage were to go up, they could substitute
capital for labor, they could move their investments
to other countries. They have quite a few
good substitutes. So if that’s actually how it works, we should probably draw
the diagram like this with a fairly inelastic
supply of labor and a fairly elastic
demand for labor. Economists have done studies
of this and on average this is what they find. So now think about your FICA taxes,
that’s a tax on labor. What’s the effect of that? Well, it’s going to look
something like this. Notice that the wage
paid by buyers of labor, that’s the wage paid
by the firms — that goes up only a little bit. On the other hand,
the wage received by the suppliers of labor,
that is the wage which the workers end up with,
that goes down by a lot. And this makes perfect sense
when we have a very inelastic supply of labor. The laborers can’t escape
the tax and, therefore, they end up bearing
most of the burden of the tax. This doesn’t mean, by the way,
that we shouldn’t have social security taxes. It may in fact be a good way
of forcing people to save for their own future,
but this does mean it is not a free lunch
for the workers. The workers’ wages will drop
because of the tax. If we didn’t have
the social security tax, wages for most workers
would in fact be higher. Here’s one more application,
health insurance mandates. Suppose that the government
requires employers to provide health insurance
to their workers as is now the case
for many employers under the Affordable Care Act. Who’s going to pay for this? Who will end up paying for this? Is it primarily the employers
or primarily the workers? It’s really just the same analysis
as we had before. A health insurance mandate
is quite similar to a tax. A health insurance mandate
simply means that the employers have to pay a higher wage,
but that’s just, then, the same as a tax. What we just saw
is that if labor supply is less elastic than labor demand,
which in many cases makes sense, then in that case most
of the mandate will actually be paid for
by the workers. Real wages will fall. Again this doesn’t necessarily mean
that the mandate is a bad idea but it does mean
it’s not a free lunch for the workers. The workers end up paying
for their health care through the medium of lower wages. Taxes have a couple
of other effects including the raising of revenue
and also creating some dead weight loss. Those are what we’re going
to look at in the next lecture. – [Narrator] If you want
to test yourself, click Practice questions. Or if you’re ready to move on,
just click Next Video. ♪ [music] ♪

This Woman Pays Drug Users Not To Have Kids (HBO)

Since the 1970s, at least 45 states have prosecuted women
for using drugs while pregnant. Alabama has one of the country’s
strictest laws on the subject. It’s been used to prosecute women
even before they’ve given birth. And one woman in Alabama is on a crusade to keep drug users from
getting pregnant in the first place. — Everyone knows a drug addict, unfortunately. So if you know anybody who’s
using drugs that could get pregnant, we’ll pay them to use birth control. That’s what we do. — Barbara Harris thinks drug addicts
shouldn’t have children, and she’s using cash incentives
to make sure they don’t. — Nothing positive comes to a drug addict who gives birth to eight children
that are taken away from her. This is a win-win for everybody. — Her non-profit, Project Prevention, pays addicts and alcoholics $300 if they get sterilized or put on long-term birth control. — It says no left turn here. — But you’re turning right. — I’m going this way— Oh, I thought she wanted me to go that way. — Over the last 20 years, she’s travelled the country in her branded RV and paid 7,000 people to give up their fertility. Most of them are women. She launched Project Prevention
after she adopted four babies in four years, each born to the same drug-addicted mother. — You’ve been doing this work for nearly 20 years now. How have things changed? — When I first started, the drug of choice was crack. Now it’s switched, and now it’s meth and heroin, and a lot of prescription drugs. Nothing else has changed— drugs are still just as bad, women are still having numerous children, foster care’s still overloaded, hundreds of thousands of kids
are still in need of homes. — The birth control she offers isn’t condoms and pills, it’s IUDs, implants and sterilization. Those who choose sterilization
get a lump sum after the procedure. Those who go for less permanent options
are paid in smaller installments. Thousands of women have taken her money
in exchange for permanent sterilization, entirely legally. Project Prevention itself doesn’t sterilize addicts, just pays them— Harris leaves the procedures to doctors. She gets anything up to half a million dollars
in private donations every year. — I think if there’s anything that
everybody can agree on— the left, the right, and everybody in the middle— it’s that it’s not okay to abuse children. — You think having a child when you’re
drinking and taking drugs is child abuse? — Yes. They say don’t even drink caffeine
when you’re pregnant, so I don’t know how meth could be good for a baby. — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates 4.7 percent of women aged 15 to 44
use drugs while they’re pregnant. And more than 32 percent of
all children placed in foster care were removed from home because
of their parents’ drug or alcohol use. Harris made the nine-hour trip to Mobile when she heard about a local woman who had
been imprisoned for taking heroin while pregnant. She doesn’t want drug users sent to jail, she wants them on long-term
or permanent birth control. — How is doing what you do, without looking at the social causes
that create a situation like this, how is that any more than
a Band-Aid on a huge problem? — It’s not a Band-Aid on the problem. We’re dealing with— we’re solving the problem we’re dealing with. We’re preventing women who are strung out
on drugs and alcohol from conceiving a child. — Harris targets areas where
she thinks addicts will congregate: like cheap motels, liquor stores and methadone clinics. It’s not even 11 a.m. when she meets
33-year-old Alesia Robinson, and Robinson already seems high. She has seven children, and used during all her pregnancies. — Can you still get pregnant? — Yes I can. — So, have you thought about
getting on birth control? — Yeah. — Well then, you need to do it.
— Let’s do it right now. — We don’t do the birth control, but you need to do it, okay? Okay, because that’s gonna prevent
the next heartache, right? One less worry. — One less worry. — It doesn’t bother you that,
by virtue of what you do, you’re targeting a specific section of the population? — No, no. — It doesn’t bother you at all.
— No. — A disproportionate number of people
who use your services aren’t white. How do you respond to the claim
that you are socially engineering? — For somebody to hear about what we do and
think we’re only paying people of color is very racist, because they’re assuming that all drug addicts
are people of color and that is not true. — Is it really informed consent
when they’re in a chaotic situation? — That’s between them and the doctor. He has to decide whether he thinks
they’re able to get birth control. Nobody has a right to force feed any child drugs and then deliver a child that may die
or may have lifelong illnesses— nobody has that right. — I think it was some kinda flyer or something, and all I remember is the number was 1-888-30-CRACK. — A memorable number. — Yeah. For someone, yeah, who is an addict, yeah. You can’t forget it. — Tina Boyd is a Project Prevention client
who was sterilized eight years ago. She’s been clean since 2012, but most of her life has been spent using drugs— including when she was pregnant with her sons, Joey and Michael. — Do you think that your drug use
has affected them long-term? — I know it has, it’s affected Joey. — In what way? — He has a receptive and cognitive delay. He doesn’t understand a lot. They said that he’ll probably have to
live with someone the rest of his life. Which, hopefully, will be me. I love you, that’s my baby. — I love you too. — After Joey was born, Boyd took Harris’s cash in exchange for getting an IUD, but then Boyd decided to have another baby. After Michael was born addicted, she went back to Project Prevention
to get paid for sterilization. — Do you ever have any second thoughts? — No. — Not even when your youngest son
says he wants a little sister? — Could you have it, and then I’ll give it back to you? I can’t. I can’t, I can’t, I can’t, I can’t. — Just listening to you,
it makes me feel like you have… you… don’t believe in yourself. — I believe in my limitations. God forbid, if you guys had bought drugs with you… I can’t say that I wouldn’t have sniffed ‘em out. And I don’t want to live like that. I don’t want my children to have to live like that. — Would you like the ability to
be able to do things differently? — Oh God, yes. Are you kidding? Yes, everything. Everything. Everything. — Barbara Harris’s greatest impact is in perpetuating really destructive and cruel myths about
pregnant women and their children. — Lynn Paltrow heads up the
National Advocates for Pregnant Women. She’s been a critic of Barbara Harris’s
work for over 20 years: — You’re assuming every woman that’s
a drug addict is looking for treatment, they’re not! — Paltrow works with Mary Barr, a social justice advocate, former addict, and mother who used drugs when
she was pregnant with both her kids. — I have two children who are incredibly healthy, were born healthy. They are 26 and 25, and they’re
very, amazingly, successful. — If you had met Barbara during
the height of your addiction, what would you thought of that offer? — I would have taken it, because $300, you know, and all at once— that meant, for me, three nights of sleeping indoors. — Paltrow says it’s the world
the children of addicts are born into that leaves them so disadvantaged, not the substances they were exposed to. — When you talk to the medical researchers, the great news is that none of the criminalized drugs cause unique, permanent, terrible damage. Three percent of all women give birth to babies
that have what are called serious birth defects. None of that has anything to do
with the criminalized drugs. — Do you think Barbara Harris has quite
a static view of addicts and addiction, that once you’re an addict you’re always an addict? — Yes, and she’s not the only one. When somebody was telling me
I couldn’t be a productive mother, and that my children would be born,
you know, disabled or something, I mean, wow. I believed that. — The biggest threats to our children have nothing to do with what any
individual woman did or didn’t do. It has to do with poverty,
the lack of access to health care. It has to do with the stress created by racism. — Do you not think that addicts might
deserve a second chance and that, by promoting sterilization,
you’re denying them a second chance? — Well, we don’t promote sterilization. That’s their choice. They got strung out, they decided they wanted $300 to sterilize themselves. And if it’s a decision they regret, it was a decision they made— just like prostituting and ending up with AIDS. Because I watched how my children suffered and
had to withdraw from drugs when they were born. So no, I wasn’t thinking about
the women—“these poor women.” I was thinking, “My poor children.” — This is all very straightforward for you, isn’t it? It’s very simple. — To me, it is. Nobody who disagrees with what we’re doing has yet to give me a logical, rational reason why a drug addict or an alcoholic should get pregnant. And I always say to them, if you believe that strongly that these
women should keep conceiving children, then you should step up and adopt the next one born. But most of the people who have a
problem with what we’re doing, they would never consider
adopting one of these children. So if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Teacher pay: Sketching a win-win solution | IN 60 SECONDS

Amid this spring’s teacher walkouts, the
outlines of a sensible deal on teacher pay seem pretty clear. First, there’s a need for additional taxpayer
support. Terrific teachers are woefully underpaid and, in many states, average pay should be substantially higher. Second, an across the board increase isn’t
the whole answer. Some lousy teachers are currently overpaid,
even as exceptional teachers are wildly underpaid. Current pay scales simply
don’t create room to use or appropriately compensate teachers who are doing great work. New taxpayer investment should help change
that reality. Third, retirement benefits for educators
cost twice as much as those for other workers. Teachers need to do their part, and agree to overhaul outmoded and expensive pension systems. Doing so will help free up substantial dollars for teacher take-home pay. Such a deal on taxes, pay systems, and pensions
involves short-term sacrifices. But such a bargain has the potential to yield
big benefits for students, teachers, and taxpayers. Do you think we should raise teacher pay? Let us know in your comments. Also, let us know what other topics you’d like our scholars to cover in 60 seconds, and be sure to like and subscribe for more research and videos from AEI.

Office Hours: Elasticity of Demand

♪ [music] ♪ – [Mary Clare] Today,
we’ll be applying elasticity of demand
in the real world. We’ll do so with two examples. First, suppose in your college town, real estate developers are building thousands of new
student-friendly apartments close to campus. If you want to pay
the lowest rent possible, should you hope
that demand for apartments is elastic or inelastic? As always, try to answer
the question by yourself. Check out our video
on Elasticity of Demand, attempt the problem,
and then come back, and we can work
through it together. An easy way
to approach this problem is to test it out
with extreme examples. What happens when demand
is very elastic, and what happens when demand
is very inelastic? First, let’s imagine
an apartment is, say, $600, and that demand is very elastic. These are our most
price-sensitive consumers. Now, if real estate developers
build more houses, the supply curve will shift out. Note that the demand curve
does not change, so we move along the demand curve. Clearly, demand will increase. But here’s the thing —
if demand is very elastic, the price won’t change
all that much. Housing cost decreased by a bit, but you might not
even notice the change. Let’s see if there’s a better price with very inelastic demand. So start with
the initial conditions again — an average apartment is $600. By the way,
a trick for distinguishing between inelastic and elastic is that a perfectly inelastic line looks like an “I,” for inelastic. So housing increases in the area
and supply shifts out. Now, what happens to demand? It barely budges! Perhaps more surprisingly, the price falls by quite a bit. Now this is great news
for college kids and any renters out there. If we compare this to the price drop
from our elastic demand curve, it’s much lower. So if you’re a student hoping
to pay the lowest rent possible, you’d hope
for an inelastic demand curve in this case. Let’s try one more example
to ensure you’ve got the hang of it. Now let’s say
the local government announces that thousands of apartments
close to campus are uninhabitable and must be torn down
next semester. If you want to pay
the lowest rent possible in this case, should you hope
that demand for apartments is elastic or inelastic? We’ll use the same approach
we used last time. First, suppose demand
is very elastic. If apartments
are suddenly condemned, then in the short run
this causes a rapid drop in the supply
of available apartments, and the supply curve shifts back. Our new equilibrium price
is slightly higher and the quantity is much lower. Once again, elastic demand means consumers are very responsive
to changes in price. But, if the demand curve
were inelastic, closer to looking like an “I,” even a small decrease in quantity would trigger
a large increase in price. In comparison
to our elastic demand, the price is much higher. So if you’re hoping to pay
the lowest rent possible, you’d hope
for an elastic demand curve in the case of apartment shortages, such that a large drop in supply would result in only
a small increase in rental price. Let’s sum up. In both examples, elastic demand
was very price-sensitive. Small changes in price,
up or down, led to large changes in demand. Inelastic demand,
on the other hand, was less responsive
to changes in price. The price had to drop
by quite a bit to get the same change
in quantity demanded. So, inelastic demand
works in our favor when supply increases
and shifts out, but works against us
when supply shrinks and shifts back. As always,
let us know what you think. And if you’d like more practice, check out our additional
brain teasers at the end of this video. ♪ [music] ♪