Rising Wage Inequality, Rate of Return on Investment in Education and Cost of Education

One of the most interesting facts about the growth of developed nations, especially of the US growth, in the last three decades is significant growth of the ratio of the wage of skilled labor to that of unskilled labor. At the same time, existing evidence seems to suggest that the ratio of the rate of return on investment in skilled labor to that of unskilled labor has stayed pretty stable. This contradicting trend in movement of two ratios is formally easy to explain. Being aware of the fact that all possible measures of the rate of return in education confront, in one way or another, differences in wages of different educational levels with the cost of reaching the concerned level of education, we can with certainty conclude that, in order to keep the rate of return ratio unchanged, the increase of wage ratio should be accompanied with adequate increase in the ratio of the cost of reaching a skilled level of education to the cost of reaching an unskilled level. This is something that follows from identity and as such cannot be questioned. The real question here refers to a possible source of relative increase in the cost of reaching skilled level of education. Possibilities are here enormous and every developed country presents a different story. The purpose of this article is to shed a light on one of the sources of education cost growth which is common to all developed countries and which can explain the greatest part of education cost ratio increase in all developed countries. In what follows we will show that the increase in the cost of education ratio is mostly due, first, to the fact that technological progress in industry of education is negligible, second, to the fact that “products” of industry of education are nontradeables, and third, to the increase of wage ratio itself

Capital Augmenting and Labor Augmenting Approach in Measuring Contribution of Human Capital and Education to Economic Growth

In this paper an effort has been made to unveil some hidden and implicit assumptions that has been used in different models dealing with analysis and measurement of contribution of human capital to economic growth. We start from general production function with heterogeneous labor input and general production function with heterogeneous human and physical capital. By introducing different assumptions regarding partial elasticity of substitution between different factors of production we derived different models for human capital contribution. Apart from making hidden assumptions of existing models explicit, we also derived dozen of others models that can be used for same purposes. Among those newly proposed models especially important are those that are derived from general production function with heterogeneous human capital and that are based on assumption of unlimited partial elasticity of substitution between different kinds of human capital. First, they allow for more detailed sources of growth analysis. Second, they do not have any problem with wage premium increase experienced in last three decade, which make problematic usage of most of other models used so far

Oversupply of Labor and Other Peculiarities of Arts Labor Market

There are several striking peculiarities of the arts labor market that have attracted the attentions of researchers in the last several decades: first is constant long run excess supply of arts labor; second, artists are more likely to be multiple-job-holders than other professions; third, artists pay significant earning penalties; finally, there are huge variations in artists earnings and huge inequalities among artists themselves. In order to explain these peculiarities, in this paper we developed two dynamic models of an artist’s behavior and arts labor supply. In the first model proposed here an artist is depicted as someone who is hired on the arts labor market and paid for his artistic time. In the second model an artist is described as someone who sells his products, like paintings for instance, on the market for artistic products. In order to make these models dynamic, an artist’s productivity is here supposed to be a function of accumulated human capital of the artist. As a consequence, the supply of labor in the arts market appears as the result of an inter-temporal process of resources allocation. Both models end with the same result: the cost of producing a unit of an artistic commodity in a particular year should be equal to the present value of expected streams of all monetary and nonmonetary benefits generated by production of a given artistic unit. This result appears to be pretty suitable for formalization of several existing hypotheses aimed at explaining arts labor market peculiarities. Especially, by referring to the stream of expected nonmonetary benefits, models developed here are able to formalize the most promising among these hypotheses according to which an artist’s need for self-discovery and self-actualization is the driving force in explaining the oversupply of arts labor

Causes of Growth in Transition Countries 1990-2012: Comparative Analysis

This paper provides comparative analysis of the proximate causes of growth of South East European, Central European and Former Soviet Union countries. The first section covers comparative sources of growth analysis for GDP. Apart from this conventional sources-of-growth analysis, both the demand and the industry side decomposition of the GDP growth rate, is given in second section of the paper. In the demand side of the sources-of-growth analysis, special attention is devoted to the issue of the level of capital account liberalisation and its influence on the growth anatomy. Connected with this is the issue of industry / sectors side sources-of-growth analysis. The third section covers comparative source-of-growth analysis for GDP per capita as an approximation of growth of standard of living. The results of the above mentioned different sources-of-growth approaches present a good basis for further research of fundamental causes of growth of these countries

Что такое -те во 2-м лице множественного числа повелительного наклонения в русском и хорватскосербском языках ?

Da bi se dao odgovor na postavljeno pitanje, treba utvrditi što je -i u oblicima imperativa (u 2. licu jednine i množine u ruskom jeziku i u 2. licu jednine i 1. i 2. licu množine u hrvatsko-srpkom). Da bi se, pak, utrvrdlo što je to -i, treba razmotriti tvorbu spomenutih imperativskih oblika od prezentske osnove. Time se automatski nameće i pitanje utvrđivanja granice između prezentske osnove i prezentskih nastavaka. Sve je to razmatrano na građi ruskog i hrvatskosrpskog jezika, pri čemu problemi - koje je trebalo riješiti da bi se do odgovora došlo -nisu jednako raspoređeni: za naš je jezik mnogo važniji problem utvrđivanja granice između prezentske osnove i prezentskog nastavka. Odgovor je na pitanje postavljeno u naslovu za oba jezika isti.1. Рассматривая вопрос -те во 2-м лице множественного числа повелительного наклонения в русском языке, мы никак не могли не заняться и рассмотрением вопроса -и в повелительном наклонении. Mы пришли к выводу, что -и можно считать только суффиксом основы подпарадигмы частичной парадигмы повелительного наклонения (которую составляют 2-е лицо единственного числа и 2-е лицо множественного числа) и что, следовательно, -те можно считать только окончанием в форме 2-го лица множественного числа данной парадигмы (в которой окончанием 2-го лица единственного числа данной парадигмы является нулевой морф). Согласно сказанному, подпарадигмы частичной парадигмы повелительного наклонения глаголов идти и резать анализируем так: ид-и-ø режь-ø-ø ид-и-те режь-ø-те. 2. Рассматривая вопрос того же -te в хорватскосербском языке , мы должны были предварительно решить вопрос проведения границы между основной и окончаниями в формах настоящего времени. И мы пришли к выводу, что окончаниямаи в 3-м лице множественного числа настоящего времени надо считать -u, е и -ju. Что же касается повелительного наклонения, то мы считаем, что суффиксами основы подпарадигмы частичной парадигмы повелительного наклонения (которую в хорватскосербском языке составляют: форма 2-го лица ед. ч. и формы 1-го и 2-го лица мн. ч.) надо считать -i-, -j- и -ø, а окончаниями -- -ø, -mo и -te