Chapter 3 Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian Model 11
4. The increase in the number of workers at Home shifts out the relative supply schedule such that the
corner points are at (1, 3/2) and (1, 5) instead of (1/2, 3/2) and (1/2, 5). The intersection of the relative
5. This answer is identical to that in Answer 3. The amount of “effective labor” has not changed because
the doubling of the labor force is accompanied by a halving of the productivity of labor.
6. This statement is just an example of the pauper labor argument discussed in the chapter. The point is
that relative wage rates do not come out of thin air; they are determined by comparative productivity
7. The problem with this argument is that it does not use all the information needed for determining
comparative advantage in production: This calculation involves the four unit labor requirements
(for both the industry and service sectors, not just the two for the service sector). It is not enough
8. Although Japanese workers may earn the equivalent wages of U.S. workers, the purchasing power of
their income is one-third less. This implies that although w = w* (more or less), p p* (because 3p =
p*). Because the United States is considerably more productive in services, service prices are
9. Gains from trade still exist in the presence of nontraded goods. The gains from trade decline as the
share of nontraded goods increases. In other words, the higher the portion of goods that do not enter
the international marketplace, the lower the potential gains from trade. If transport costs were high
enough so that no goods were traded, then, obviously, there would be no gains from trade.
10. The world relative supply curve in this case consists of a step function, with as many “steps”
(horizontal portions) as there are countries with different unit labor requirement ratios. Any