Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

AQA A-level Economics new 7136 - 06, 13 & 19 Jun 2017 [Exam Discussion] Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ademjh)
    Any grade boundary predictions?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Higher than last year was a simple paper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Guys for the Essay 3, 25 marker with externalities could u have one of the solutions as choice architecture by firms? Like framing and stuff of menus and putting up pics of healthy food etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TripleXenia)
    Guys for the Essay 3, 25 marker with externalities could u have one of the solutions as choice architecture by firms? Like framing and stuff of menus and putting up pics of healthy food etc.
    Yeah that'd be fine. I wrote about how people have bounded rationality and so a tax wouldn't work in part because of inelastic PED. But also classical economic theory suggests than an increase in price of unhealthy food should lead to a decrease in the demand for unhealthy food, however bounded rationality may mean this isn't the case and people may just continue buying unhealthy food as they would've done without a tax. It is assumed people are rational all the time when they likely are not. I also said stuff like unhealthy snacks in vending machines found in hospitals and schools have become a sort of 'social norm' and that in order for this to change the government should replace these unhealthy vending machines with healthy ones to make healthy snacks a more 'default option' by making unhealthy food more difficult to access. I said there needed to be a shift in social attitudes and that "Junk food" needs to stop being viewed as the quick, easy option. I think anything like that would be fine?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danllo)
    I done context 1 (Privitisation) and Essay 2 on Price discrimination

    What was context 2 on ? The 25 marker ?
    Essay two was poverty though???

    Context 2 was gender pay gaps
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RG110man)
    Yeah that'd be fine. I wrote about how people have bounded rationality and so a tax wouldn't work in part because of inelastic PED. But also classical economic theory suggests than an increase in price of unhealthy food should lead to a decrease in the demand for unhealthy food, however bounded rationality may mean this isn't the case and people may just continue buying unhealthy food as they would've done without a tax. It is assumed people are rational all the time when they likely are not. I also said stuff like unhealthy snacks in vending machines found in hospitals and schools have become a sort of 'social norm' and that in order for this to change the government should replace these unhealthy vending machines with healthy ones to make healthy snacks a more 'default option' by making unhealthy food more difficult to access. I said there needed to be a shift in social attitudes and that "Junk food" needs to stop being viewed as the quick, easy option. I think anything like that would be fine?
    You can also talk about nudges and making it a status quo to place sugary and unhealthy foods above eyelevel. However, due to bounded rationality, consumers may hyperbolically discount and want shorter smaller rewards such as unhealthy foods instead of longer larger rewards such as being physically in shape
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    mannn that exam ****ed me, stupidly chose to do the gender pay gap then realised it was a dead ass 25 marker, left to do the sugar one (ofc) then had 5 mins to finish the 25 marker for pay gap which as u can imagine went tits up, no conclusion, no coherent points, used a monopsony diagram even though there was absolutely no context in which to place it.

    Good day at the office.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what about the 9 marker on gender pay gap, had no idea what to write about marginal product revenue, and think i messed up the 25 marker on gender pay gap, what points did you make?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by junky27)
    yep I recall that couldn't quite remember the figures but yes I did that.
    53.5? DPD, UPS, Royal Mail
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by messi90)
    what about the 9 marker on gender pay gap, had no idea what to write about marginal product revenue, and think i messed up the 25 marker on gender pay gap, what points did you make?
    idek mate, did government has a monopsony of civil servants, many of which are social care workers and nurses (quoted data about how there are lotsa women in these sectors) and so can lead to depressed wages, then i said trade unions could mitigate this, along with minimum wages, then talked about higher than equilibrium wage rates and unemployment, then did a short para (the thing I really wanted to talk about) which was about labour disadvantage and long run MRP but didn't have time. Capped at 19 max due to no conclusion, probably got around 15 if I'm lucky. Rest was calm though, for the 9 marker I spoke about low productivity = low MP = low MRP = less pay kinda ting, how bout u?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amerahussain)
    You can also talk about nudges and making it a status quo to place sugary and unhealthy foods above eyelevel. However, due to bounded rationality, consumers may hyperbolically discount and want shorter smaller rewards such as unhealthy foods instead of longer larger rewards such as being physically in shape
    Yeah, I guess my evaluation turned into comparing the more classical economics ways of dealing with market failure (Tax and that sort of thing) and the more behavioural policies. I think in the end I said the sugar tax would be *******s because of the the behavioural stuff I'd said (obviously I worded this in a more diplomatic fashion in my paper lol)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I talked about the free-rider problem on sugary drinks in the 15 marker and that people have free healthcare so they aren't concerned as they can get checked up freely. I talked about Theresa May subsidising free breakfast for infants and that the Govt should subsidise fruits and vegetable. Also drew a PPF for the 25 marker on sugary drinks showing the opportunity cost and that education is more likely to change people's behaviours from primary to secondary school. Also as I sort of guessed there would be a sugar tax question the night before, I read up on France having a REFILL BAN on sugary drinks, I talked about the UK implementing a same policy to reduce the overconsumption of sugary drinks. Drew my MSC/MPC/MPB curve with DWL and inefficiencies shown as MSC is not equal to MPB (not the social optimum). Then I talked about how the UK Govt had bans on 10 packs of cigarettes to reduce consumption of the demerit good and talked about how they should do the same for drinks or put warnings on cans/bottles like they do for cigarettes. Mentioning that sugary drinks are in inelastic good and so a "sugar tax" will not affect output is a good point to mention (show supply curve shifting left).

    Messed up badly on context 2 though, the 9 marker had be clueless and I wrote half a page or so of complete rubbish.
    For the 25 marker I just mentioned about females being encouraged to work in workshops/things like the Princes' trust and mentioned how Norway had 40% female working in large firms, whereas the UK was 23.2%. I talked about big firms being bias against women because in certain jobs (requiring physical strength for example) they may not be as productive and said that a NMW should be set to discourage this, min price (so drew a straight line above the equilibrium point). Although I said that firms may just go capital intensive or switch to that instead of hiring female workers.

    What do you guys think the grade boundaries will be, think I got 51/52 in that paper judging from what I wrote, which would be a C using last years boundaries, hopefully the macro paper is easier. Need to get a B minimum, hopefully an A but at this rate it's not looking well.

    But the 9 and 25 marker in context 2 were fairly difficult and that's caused me to slip
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peddle)
    For context A 9 marker, do you think you could make the argument that in the long run that there average costs may fall due to economies of scale and thus profits rise?
    I wrote this too, but not sure. Surely if Royal Mail are only a working monopoly, they may increase output which reduces AC and pass these onto consumers as lower prices to increase SNP and market share?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did context 1 and essay 3. I feel like I was way too vague just as the pressure got to me.
    For the context 1 9 mark I just said about how increases labour costs and additional cost which increase ac and showed this increasing which reduces the supernormal profit but said how the other profitable areas might cross subsidise this and therefore have lesser impact. For the 25 marks I said:
    1st para- benefits due to increase productive and dynamic efficiencies to reduce cost and remain competitive and may reduce X-inefficiency. This can benefit consumers as can compete on price due to reduced costs and may increase quality.
    Para 2-benefit the income the gov gets from the sale as well as potential taxation on future firms that enter the market
    Para 3- greater cost as may become a privatised monopoly blah blah and not be competitive as has monopoly power
    Eval-setting right level to sell at e.g as Royal Mail under valued, gov failure of regulatory capture and Admin costs as would need regulation to ensure it doesn't monopolise and remain competitive, and I said a few others which I can't remember
    Then essay 3 I was running out of time
    For the 15 marker I didn't explain about the lack of information literally said it was a demerit good showed the negative externalities and explained only interested in private gains and losses so doesn't think About negative externality on society etc so is overconsumed especially as demerit goods are usually addictive.
    25 marker (fully ran out so did 2 paras and 1/2 eval)
    Para 1-Taxation is best as reduces supply and therefore demand which stops people buying it at the higher prices and prices people out the market.
    Para 2- behavioural and education may be better
    Could use nudges such as the traffic light eating system and e.g. Macdonalds offering a fruit bag instead of chips as a way to influence people to act more rationally and not consume as much junk food etc. Then said education could be interdicted to plug the gap in knowledge which will enable people to make more informed choices that will be better for them and society which reduces the use of demerit goods as they are more aware of negative effects. Then said this could be better for future generations as could educate at young age to help prevent future adult obesity.
    Eval:
    The ped of the good influences the impact of the taxation, impacts those on lower incomes more as they be priced out of the market and this worsens income inequality. The willingness and ability to access the education as for it to work people have to use it. And a few more which I can't remember.
    Everyone else on here has seemed to go into a lot more depth and used greater economic knowledge and this has me Abit worried especially as I ran out of time. Any thoughts? Thanks X
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amerahussain)
    I wrote this too, but not sure. Surely if Royal Mail are only a working monopoly, they may increase output which reduces AC and pass these onto consumers as lower prices to increase SNP and market share?
    Yeah, if they're a monopoly they benefit from EoS, so if you drew a LRAC curve and showed as output increases the average cost per unit falling then consumers benefit from prices being pushed down. I didn't read the question as I did context 2, but in this case drawing a monopoly and showing supernormal profits is probably needed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone do essay 1?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dashhh)
    mannn that exam ****ed me, stupidly chose to do the gender pay gap then realised it was a dead ass 25 marker, left to do the sugar one (ofc) then had 5 mins to finish the 25 marker for pay gap which as u can imagine went tits up, no conclusion, no coherent points, used a monopsony diagram even though there was absolutely no context in which to place it.

    Good day at the office.
    Well sounds like someone had a worse exam than me, you sir have given me strength. I'm considering not planning my macro paper and just writing a basic essay, better than the shitstorm that was todays essays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eaglescharlton)
    Yeah man I did that, don't see anything wrong with it and it's wrong to say that the average cost curve would shift up if wages stay the same.
    I did the same, but by the average costs rising, it isn't due to higher wages, it would be because they may have to employ more workers to keep up with the demand and operating 6 days a week across the country
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For context 2 9 marker, what diagram were you supposed to draw
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dashhh)
    idek mate, did government has a monopsony of civil servants, many of which are social care workers and nurses (quoted data about how there are lotsa women in these sectors) and so can lead to depressed wages, then i said trade unions could mitigate this, along with minimum wages, then talked about higher than equilibrium wage rates and unemployment, then did a short para (the thing I really wanted to talk about) which was about labour disadvantage and long run MRP but didn't have time. Capped at 19 max due to no conclusion, probably got around 15 if I'm lucky. Rest was calm though, for the 9 marker I spoke about low productivity = low MP = low MRP = less pay kinda ting, how bout u?
    9 marker:

    Define key terms

    Point 1- in a perfectly competitive market demand for labour is derived from the MRP define MRP. In an industry such as construction, some argue that women have a lower marginal product due to a lack of strength in comparison to men. As a result of this there MRP will be lower resulting in lower wages for women and higher wages for men.

    DIagrams- falling MRP for women, increasing MRP for men. Title above Construction Market

    2nd point- women may have lifestyle commitments such as school for children and thus are not as available as men which means there marginal revenue is likely to be lower than that of men. As a result of this womens MRP will be lower as the MRP is the mr x mp. This will result in lower wages women.

    3rd point- often imperfections in labour market such as discrimination so wages are not always dictated in relation to womens true MRP as a result of this imperfections may result in women being paid less than men despite their MRP being higher than men.

    Facts- 32% Women UK claim to be feel as though they are paid less than men (career build.co.uk).

    25 Marker

    Define key terms
    Many laws have been implemented in the past to prevent inequality most significant being that of the 1970 Equal pay act. Despite this 32% Women UK claim to be feel as though they are paid less than men (career build.co.uk).

    First arg- MIN Wage. Increase wages can increase earnings for women resulting in a more equal distribution of income and closing gender gap. MW UK= £7.50 for 21 plus

    MW diagram Increasing MW (not implementing a MW)

    Strong- Extract- 2 million women in UK do not want to work. This increase in the MW may create an incentive for them to work and also on a macro level may improve voluntary unemployment as the real market equilibrium wage is higher. Weak- the quantity demanded of labour falls and if the demand for labour is wage elastic the decrease will be larger. Final judgement- can't remember what I said.

    Point 2- In a perfectly competitive labour market the wage is derived from the MRP and thus women would be demanded in relation to their true MRP. Though there is often imperfections i.e discrimination (quoted extract). Therefore the MRP for women is often ower resulting in a larger pay gap. Solution- stricter laws to bring the demand for women back to their true MRP.

    Diagrams- Discrimination diagram and then a diagram showing the demand shifting back to the right as opposed to laws preventing discrimination.

    Weak- Figure D showed that the wage gap from 2000 to 2015 for smaller by £495 indicating the relevance of discrimination is weak. Moreover, women in their twenties often earning more than men (quote). Strong- not sure what I said.

    Conclusion- evaluated my arguments. My judgement- leave it to the market forces as minimum wages can have significant macro effects increasing costs for firms resulting in cost push inf and falling bop and AD. Imperfections such as minimum wages keep wages artificially high and the wage gap is falling. Said some more stuff- supply side policies may be best if gov intervention is necessary as this will increase skills of women resulting in a higher MRP.

    Missed out a fair bit but yeah you can get the gist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HK4)
    Well sounds like someone had a worse exam than me, you sir have given me strength. I'm considering not planning my macro paper and just writing a basic essay, better than the shitstorm that was todays essays.
    borderline same, there is still hope my friend. I'm supposed to be doing economics at uni so gotta step up my game. Chin up.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.