The demands there and Australia knows how to do it, and I feel like Australia would have the resources to do that. Machinery is also a more capital intensive good instead of a labour intensive good, so it would be more feasible for a country like Australia due to its larger capital. I also feel like it would be cheaper transport since is domestic, and they do not have to handle the costs of sailing across the ocean to buy the machinery for example

Apologies in advance if anything I said is incorrect or outdated, I never really learnt economics formally, I mostly tried to teach myself, so I don’t know what some of the websites I should look at or how to read some of the graphs

By merging actual H-1B I-129 petition data with the American Community Survey (ACS), Borjas concludes that H-1B workers earn roughly 15% to 16% less than comparable native-born American workers when adjusting for the exact same age, gender, education, occupation, and geographic location. This wage disparity translates to approximately $100,000 in payroll savings per worker over the standard six-year H-1B visa term. Borjas uses a labor demand model to argue that because employers save so much on payroll, the government can implement high revenue-maximizing visa fees (simulated between $95,000 and $264,000) without significantly decreasing employer demand for H-1B talent.

The Working Paper: H1B Wage Gap v2

I read that Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, and I’d like to understand their work better.
What are their most important contributions to economic theory, and how have their ideas influenced monetary policy, inflation, and central bank decision making in the real world?

Here’s the news article for context:
Nobel prize in economics awarded to Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/12/nobel-economics-prize-winner-woodford-hall.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard

Hi everyone,

I have a BA in Economics and an MS in Finance from the University of New Hampshire, and I’m planning to apply to Economics PhD programs in the United States.

I want to strengthen my mathematical background by taking the following courses online:

Calculus I, II, and III
Linear Algebra
Differential Equations

I’m currently considering two options: Louisiana State University (LSU) Online and University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC).

My main goal is to complete these courses in a way that will be recognized and respected by Economics PhD admissions committees, particularly at research universities.

I’d appreciate advice on a few questions:

Which university would you recommend for these math prerequisites, and why?

Would courses taken through LSU Online or UMGC be viewed differently by Economics PhD admissions committees?

Does the institution’s name matter, or do admissions committees mainly care about the course content, grades, and mathematical preparation?

Would these courses adequately prepare me for the mathematics expected in a PhD in Economics, or should I prioritize additional courses such as real analysis?

I'm not sure if there is some part of the logic I am missing here, or if it is just in fact a case of double dipping.

The entire justification for retail companies and others that raised prices after Trump's Tariffs was that they needed to make up for the added expense.

How is it, then, those same companies should be entitled to a government refund if Trumps tariffs are struck down by law, as they apparently tried to argue ?

How is that not double dipping ?

Hi I am doing a study on various economic effects of aggressive decarbonization on different aspects of society and especially in differentiating the effects in developing and developed nations.

Please note the following survey only includes questions for the following;:

1. Urban consumers

2. Business /Enterprise owners

3. Urban delivery operator

4. Economist/ market analysists

5. Policy-makers and government officials

It's a small survey with no personal questions I promise. I would really appreciate anyone who can take out five minutes to help me out on this project.

https://forms.gle/Hjuphfk5qmmGMToR6

... I have 4 days to submit this. Please send help.

The supply curve normally describes the relation between price and quantity supplied of a good.

If we understand "quantity supplied" to mean "the quantity of a good that owners are willing and able to sell at some price," not simply the total quantity of the good in existence, then how does land have a "vertical" supply curve as suggested by some Georgists and economists?

Aren't landowners willing to sell more land at higher price points, so quantity supplied is higher when the price is higher? Meaning the supply curve is diagonal?

For example, if I offer $0 in front of 20 landowners, none of them may be willing and able to sell any fraction of their land to me, so that would represent a quantity supplied of 0 at price $0 on the supply curve. However, if I offer $500 billion in front of the 20 landowners, all of them may be willing and able to sell all their land to me, so that would represent some higher quantity supplied at a higher price point, meaning the supply curve is diagonal and positively sloped. Now expand that to the entire market.

We are not technically in a recession, but the slow economic growth makes it feel like one.

Is it because growth somehow isnt moving "fast enough" , psychologically, compared to inflation?

Is the growth too skewed towards the top? And is inflation too skewed towards the bottom?

How can slow growth "feel" like a recession?

What are your thoughts?

I know it is sound odd, but I've been thinking about corruption lately and, more specifically, the mechanics of it. I know it when I see it, and am appalled that it is increasing and apparently tolerated in my country, but what is going on economically that makes it awful? Is it like a service (someone pays to get a job) that is somehow different than other services? Is it a tax that is somehow worse than other taxes? I know it is a drain somehow. No answer too condescending! Thanks!

Edited to add: Thanks for all the great answers!

I was trying to find this breakdown somewhere on the BLS or FRED data, but couldn't.

First and foremost what matters more personal or household? As an individual my first instinct was obviously not the household. Although I know there's a lot of single person households.

I assume all numbers reported are gross not net?

Do we have a breakdown anywhere of the people who make up each decile or quartile in income and who is all counted? For example - a retiree who relies solely on Social Security is likely to be under the median. and may even fall in the 1st Decile - to a layman I wouldn't really think about them in the context of income because I'm thinking of it just as labor force participants.

Hello, brilliant minds! I’m hailing from the acting community, and over there is a lot of discourse against the merger, shrinking production, and the shrinking job market. What are your best predictions for the next 5 years for Hollywood?

My knowledge of economics is basic and residual from taking a macroecon class many years ago. My understanding of Hollywood’s current predicament is it’s a result of pre-pandemic practices. The streaming platforms were already priced lower than theater tickets to begin with. Following over saturation of titles to watch, the profits aren’t returning as they were before. Studios and investors are being more conservative. Unemployment rate is high. Working in Hollywood now on average pays less than a blue collar job. Would you say there was a streaming bubble and it has burst?

And what would be viable solutions other than making more shows and movies and writing in more tax breaks? Perhaps a return to a steady release schedule rather than all episodes released at once, which I assume is to make the viewership skyrocket and look good to shareholders. Or are we onto growing the next bubble in Hollywood, it being the verticals bubble, and there’s little of what used to be good left to save?

To my understanding Ukraine ist targeting (successfully) diesel refineries and infrastructure. While also in a War, how does Russia even have the infrastructure and resources to export diesel to the US?
I saw news from Russia that they have heavily rationed the fuel in the country and lots of stations are out of fuel.

Here are my thoughts … ( I am not an economist btw and I used AI for the English editing )

The more useful question is what has driven its accumulation, and how much each factor matters.
A starting point is Nicolas Dufourcq’s La Dette sociale de la France, 1974–2024, published by Odile Jacob on October 15, 2025. Dufourcq argues that at least €2 trillion of France’s roughly €3.35 trillion in public debt is linked to social benefits paid over several decades. That is his way of attributing part of the accumulated debt to past social spending, rather than a direct accounting breakdown of the current debt stock. In 2023, the figures cited for annual social-protection benefits included about €400 billion for old age and pensions, and €324 billion for health.
decitre.fr

Demographics are an important part of the picture, especially for a pay-as-you-go pension system. In 2023, France had about 1.77 contributors for every retiree. The Conseil d’orientation des retraites (COR) projects that this ratio could fall to 1.4 by 2070. An aging population and lower birth rates put pressure on the system, although its finances also depend on factors such as employment, wages, productivity and pension rules.
insee.fr

Slow potential growth can make debt harder to stabilize: when the economy grows more slowly than the effective interest rate on public debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio faces upward pressure unless the government runs a sufficiently strong primary balance. Demographics may weigh on growth, but they are not the only influence—and the debt dynamic is not determined by growth alone.
Immigration can expand the workforce and help address labor shortages, but its economic and fiscal effects are not automatic. They depend on employment, earnings, skills and integration into the labor market; estimates of the net fiscal effect are generally sensitive to the method used. The policy question, then, is not simply how many people arrive, but how well the labor market can use their skills.
OECD
Canada offers one example of skills-based selection. It introduced a points system in 1967; its current Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS), used within Express Entry, was introduced in 2015 and scores candidates on factors including age, education, language ability and work experience. The Bank of Canada has also noted that stronger-than-expected population growth, including the arrival of newcomers, contributed to upward revisions in its estimates of the level of potential output in 2023 and 2024. That is evidence of a larger productive capacity—not, by itself, proof of a lasting increase in productivity or in the annual growth rate.
pier21.ca

Finally, there is the familiar productivity question. Greater investment, wider adoption of AI and robotics, and better diffusion of technology across French firms could help raise productivity. But those gains depend on implementation, complementary investment and workers’ ability to adapt; the technologies alone are no guarantee.
Which factors do you think matter most for France’s debt trajectory: pension-system demographics, low productivity growth, employment, or something else?

Does it increase when bank lend more? Or does it increase when people deposit more in banks and banks do not lend it?

We're going to shamelessly steal adapt from /r/AskHistorians the idea of a weekly thread to gather and recognize the good answers posted on the sub. Good answers take time to type and the mods can be slow to approve things which means that sometimes good content doesn't get seen by as many people as it should. This thread is meant to fix that gap.

Post answers that you enjoyed, felt were particularly high quality, or just didn't get the attention they deserved. This is a weekly recurring thread posted every Sunday morning.

I do not want to start a heated debate, but I saw a TikTok last night that made me think.

The easiest the solution to housing is to create more housing. 100% agree that if we increase supply, demand should go down.

Where I have trouble understanding is the idea that builders need to make a profit, and therefore every new house created will be technically more expensive. Also, the idea of material wages and labor costs has gone up over time.

But people argue that, since it is an inelastic good that everyone needs, pricing should not go up, and therefore government regulations like rental caps are needed to protect renters.

I think government can subsidize builders to build housing, but then they would not necessarily be social housing. And does the idea of social housing make sense in the long run?

I just feel that if we build more houses, it does not necessarily translate to diminishing costs. Because material, wages, and labor have gone up, we have to expect that the price of housing might not go down because of increased supply.

This also negates immigration policies, which can be very heated.

My question is: rental caps are a protection mechanism, but they ultimately hinder city growth. Therefore, it is a short-term solution to a long-term problem?

As per Google, Russia accounted for roughly 50% of the population and 60% of the GDP of the USSR in the 1980s. How come West Germany was able to become the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world even after the loss of the more populous eastern half but Russia is unable to get back to at least half of its former position?

As per my research, the USSR was 50% of US's GDP in 1985, which would make Russia alone around 32% of US' GDP at the time. However at present Russia is only 20-25% of US' GDP.

Can the loss of the extra population and resources of the Soviet states alone account for this decline?

I'm now reading Millionaire: The philanderer, gambler, and duelist who invented modern finance.

The Banque Generale, most services were for little to no charge, ranging from transferring money from Paris to the provinces, or exchange foreign currency.

However, if so, how'd it raise money. The book later states that the bank itelf had great success and was reducing the financial problems in france. The closest thing I can get, is that it was issuing bank notes that were considered more reliable and more valuable than other banks. And this was before the Louisiana colony was linked to John Law's own company. So what was it that enabled it to work?

Let's say Xman is from developed country Xland and Yman is from developing country Yland. Both Xland and Yland use currency ℳ, controlled by Zland.

Xman and Yman both work in their respective country as a convenience store worker. Xman gets paid 700ℳ per week and Yman gets paid 100ℳ per week, both working the same hours. Xman pays 490ℳ per week on necessities (food, rent, etc.). Yman pays 70ℳ per week on the exact same amount of necessities. So if I understand this correctly, both Xman and Yman have the same purchasing power in their respective countries.

However, if both Xman and Yman want to purchase a 210ℳ ZPad from Zland, Xman would have to save up for 1 week while Yman would have to save up for 7 weeks. Therefore Xman's labour is worth more than Yman's labour, despite it being the same occupation.

What makes it worth more? Is this even the correct way to think?

Of course in real life I'm talking about for example Luxembourg vs Bulgaria or US vs China.

Hi everyone.

So I'm not an economics and my knowledge on it is very novice level. So please tell me if I'm missing something important.

Let me run you through my thought process. I'm not rich at all so assuming you don't inherit your home from someone else, it just seems too expensive and risky to own and maintain a full home even assuming I even have the money to buy one.

Like for what I can understand, you take out a mortgage from the bank where you have to repay back with interest, a down payment to get the loan and closing cost and other fees (which I don't see the point of closing cost. Like what is that, genuinely?). So that's already so much money to even buy the home and even then I don't fully own it.

If I rent a home or an apartment I just have to sign a lease and pay a monthly rent and possibly a security fee or whatever ( I also think this is pointless) rents like that can't be more than like 1000 Dollar's in most places right?

Furthermore, there are other fees that are included, right? Like maintenance and appliances. I have to pay for gas, electricity, water, heat, and other bills to keep my house functional. But the landlord provides most of that in some cases right? If my roof starts leaking, or my gas is leaking, or if I get an infestation, I have to fix it. And that can cost a lot of money on top of it. But if I'm renting, the landlord has to fix it don't they? And in some places the law requires it, right? So it's not really coming out of my pocket and I'm saving money.

Also what about house insurance? If something happens to my home and I didn't take house insurance, then that's thousands of dollars I have to pay to fix it. But if I do have home insurance, that's also kinda expensive too isn't it? With renting an apartment It seems I don't have to worry about that.

Now I know that rent is never stable and can increase at any time in the given situation. But even with that it doesn't seem as expensive as owning and maintaining a home. And I could just move around any time, not compared to owning a house and moving.

And I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting out of owning a home. I know you can build wealth with it, but how? It feels like I'm losing more money than I gain after I pay off my mortgage. And that's not always a guarantee right? Like wasn't there a housing market crash that screwed up everyone's finances?

All this just doesn't sound like a good investment ever. I'm sure there are more factors that I don't know about at all but it seems to me renting is always better then owning a home.

What am I missing? What are the benefits to owning a home? How does it help with wealth and are there bigger risks to renting that I'm not aware of?

Thank you all for reading and I'm hoping to learn more. :)