Upon grading principles of microeconomics homework I come across too many students (ie more zero) incorrectly identify an inferior good as a low quality good. This is emphatically not always true (though a correlation probably exists). An inferior good sees fewer buyers as incomes rise. Here's a few examples of inferior goods that are not low quality:
-Bikes. There's a lot of high quality bikes out there, but, as China reminds us, increasing incomes sees fewer bikes bought.
-Personal education. Most of the time people go to school to get a degree so they can earn more money. Of course if you're already making a lot you're less likely to hit the books. Bill Gates never did finish his undergraduate degree but I doubt I'll see him in class. (Note this is personal education. The opposite it true for the education of, say, your kids.)
-Studio apartments. There's nothing inherently low quality about a studio apartment. Indeed the amenties and location could be tremdously nice (in the middle of downtown, hardwood floors, new appliances).
Quality is a relative concept, of course. This makes refering to "low quality" items in an absolute context sloppy thinking. A 42-inch television is low quality compared to a 50-inch but no one's saying the 42-inch is an inferior good. An inferior good is not "good" or "bad."
Yeah, use of bikes (along with public transportation) tend to decline with income. Note about personal education (the example I usually bring up in class): Trust-fund babies are better examples than self-made entrepreneurs (who, hypothetically, could've initially made more money with a degree).
ReplyDelete