Log out Go to App
Go to App

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 2: Problem 14

In discussing dividing up household chores, Emily Oster, an economist at the University of Chicago, advised, "No, you shouldn't always unload the dishwasher because you're better at it." If you are better at unloading the dishwasher, why shouldn't you be the one to unload it?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Despite being more efficient at unloading the dishwasher, due to the principle of comparative advantage, you should not always be the one to do it. This is because if your opportunity cost is higher for performing this task (i.e., forgoing more valuable activities), the chore should be given to someone who has a lower opportunity cost.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Concept of Comparative Advantage

To comprehend Emily's statement, an understanding of the economic concept of comparative advantage is required. This principle is the ability of an individual, business, or country to produce a good or service at a lower opportunity cost than others. Opportunity cost is the cost of forgoing the next best alternative when making a decision.
02

Apply the Concept to Scenario

Even if you are more efficient at unloading the dishwasher, it doesn't mean you should always be the one to do it due to the principle of comparative advantage. Suppose unloading the dishwasher takes less time for you than for your roommate. However, suppose your opportunity cost in terms of what you can achieve in that time (say, working on an important project, or learning a new skill) is higher than your roommate's. In this case, it would be more beneficial to divide tasks so that you can utilize your time more efficiently, and your roommate can unload the dishwasher.
03

Conclusion

The key to dividing tasks efficiently is not just looking at absolute efficiency, but also considering opportunity costs. Despite being superior at a task, if your opportunity cost is high for performing it, it might be better if someone else does it who has a lower opportunity cost. This approach allows for maximum productivity and efficiency for all parties involved.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Start your free trial

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

An economist remarked that "the cost of consuming a book is the combination of the retail price and the opportunity cost of the time spent reading." Isn't the cost of consuming a book just the price you pay to buy the book? Why include the cost of the time spent reading the book in the cost of consuming the book?

What is a production possibilities frontier? How can we show efficiency on a production possibilities frontier? How can we show inefficiency? What causes a production possibilities frontier to shift outward?

If Nicaragua can produce with the same amount of resources twice as much coffee as Colombia, explain how Colombia could have a comparative advantage in producing coffee.

In colonial America, the population was spread thinly over a large area, and transportation costs were very high because it was difficult to ship products by road for more than short distances. As a result, most of the free population lived on small farms, where people not only grew their own food but also usually made their own clothes and very rarely bought or sold anything for money. Explain why the incomes of these farmers were likely to rise as transportation costs fell. Use the concept of comparative advantage in your answer.

Lawrence Summers served as secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration and as director of the National Economic Council in the Obama administration. He has been quoted as giving the following defense of the economic approach to policy issues: There is nothing morally unattractive about saying: We need to analyze which way of spending money on health care will produce more benefit and which less, and using our money as efficiently as we can. I don't think there is anything immoral about seeking to achieve environmental benefits at the lowest possible costs. Would it be more ethical to reduce pollution without worrying about the cost or by taking the cost into account? Briefly explain.
See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free