Standard economic theory asserts that sunk costs are irrelevant in making economic
decisions, yet studies conducted by behavioral economists reveal that sunk costs often
affect economic decisions. Which of the following could explain this observation?
A) People measure the value of a good in terms of its purchase price.
B) Even though sunk costs cannot be recovered, it has been incurred and therefore
should be treated as part of the product’s value.
C) If consumers maximize their utility, it makes sense to consider the full purchase
price of a product in their consumption decisions.
D) Sunk costs have a higher opportunity cost than costs that can be recovered.
Sheldon Cleaver commented on the difficulty people have in overcoming poverty in the
United States: “Most people whose incomes fall below the poverty line have difficulty
pulling themselves above the line in future years. In this sense, poverty becomes a
vicious cycle. I believe the psychological damage households face when they are
branded with the ‘poverty’ label in our society is a major factor in their remaining in
poverty. Despair is a major reason why the percentage of people with incomes that lie
below the poverty line never falls below 10 percent.” Which of the following correctly
evaluates Cleaver’s statement?
A) Cleaver is correct. Economists often fail to take into account psychological factors
when they analyze poverty and the distribution of income in the United States. Policies
must take such factors into account if we are to make progress in eliminating poverty.
B) Cleaver is correct when he notes that poverty is a chronic problem. The best way to
reduce poverty is to force the poor to become better educated so that they can work
their way out of poverty.
C) Cleaver is correct, but he is looking at the wrong statistic. The official poverty line
understates the true degree of poverty in the United States.
D) Cleaver assumes that all those with incomes below the poverty line in one year
remain in poverty in subsequent years. In fact, research has shown that the number of
people who remain in poverty for many years is much smaller than the number who are
in poverty during any one year.