The individual labour supply framework operates with two goods goods (bought with received or unearned income) and leisure. The individuals level of utility can be derived from the power function by taking a blend of goods and leisure. Individuals will always make an effort to maximise utility, this can be done by finding the highest indifference curve that is tangential to the budget constraint, as shown below.
The utilization constraint (c1) show in Fig1 can be altered via a change on the market work wage rate, as the budget constraint slope is the wage rate. An alteration of the gradient is known as the substitution impact, where depending on whether the wage rate rises or decrease the individual will substitute either goods for leisure or leisure for goods. As the wage rate implicitly goes up the average person will choose to replace away from leisure activities and instead take part in more hours of market work. This move is shown by the budget constraint becoming steeper (BC2). The income impact now shifts the whole budget constraint up to (BC3), touching the indifference curve I2 increase. In the case attracted above the income result is greater than that of the substitution result as L to L1 (substitution effect) is significantly less than L1 to L2 (income impact). In case the substitution result was to become dominant the point L2 on the graph would need to be shifted to the left of point L. This model is one of the simplest labour source models where only 1 variable has been changed, it also only considers consumption and little or nothing that individual may do outside of market work.
Gary Becker modified the thinking on labour source in 1965 with his newspaper on the model of time allocation. He advised that households can produce goods as well as consume them, he also added time in to the model, as all activities use a finite timeframe and homeowners must choose how much time they devote to each activity. The main aspect of enough time allocation models is the production alternatives frontier of family members. Fig2 below shows the actual production opportunity curve looks like in its simplest form.
The household development possibility frontier is displayed by the series abc in fig2, from a to point b family members participates non-market work as the return is higher than that of market work. This changes at point T as the household can buy more goods employed in market work than non-market for the same timeframe, the wage rate is regular for any market hours in cases like this therefore any time of market work will returning more goods than any extra hours of non-market work. This model is good for showing the basic features of home production nonetheless it must be advanced to add indifference curves and what changes in wage rates would do to change the production possibilities frontier.
When leisure is also factored into the model indifference maps have to be drawn up to show the mixture of work and leisure most better the individual. Inside the diagram the individual may have a higher choice for leisure, this will mean the individual will not want to work any market time but instead work in the house. It's only if the average person has a high choice for goods instead of leisure that they would engage in market work to obtain the higher level of goods through attained income. If there is however a wage rate boost the individual who experienced a high desire for goods could increase their ingestion even more. Ia would move to I1a indicating the average person could obtain higher goods for less market work time. This diagram is still not really a perfect way to describe labour resource as it does not say how much time is actually divide between household work and leisure.
Becker's approach differs slightly for the reason that he says all activities entail an input of time. Not only do all activities involve time but each activity varies in the quantity of time it requires to do. For instance cricket is an extremely frustrating activity while a glass or two at the pub is a comparatively low frustrating activity. Becker perceives that foregone cash flow a more important to economical analysis than different amount of time and types of leisure arguments. This is due mainly to the issue in defining the difference between a leisure activity and a non-work activity. For example child good care can be classed as leisure as well as home production activity. Perhaps even more difficult to determine would be commuting, as it is vital to participate in market work generally nonetheless it is part of working time so could be classed as a non-work activity. Therefore thinking of these activities in the sense of how much income is lost form partaking in them is a much better thought process about why individuals choose to do certain activities. With this in mind Becker finds a growth in earnings would increase the cost of activities with large forgone profits, this might make individuals replace from these activities and instead raise the number of hours used in market work. He also suggests that that a land in the expenses of the actions would also cause a substitution from the activities and raise the number of time used in market work.
The productivity of time at work and time in leisure and non-work activities is very important to analysing why working time have lowered and leisure time have increased. The constant increase in profits has been largely credited to increased wage rates credited to improved production in the work place. This in part is because of technological progress, increased labour production and physical capital. The increased productivity in working time produces a income impact higher than the substitution have an effect on. The increased productivity in use time did the contrary the income and substitution have an impact on, with substitution influence being higher than the income have an impact on. Becker (1965) feels the income have an effect on will be greater overall considering both intake and work production increase, this is due to two income influences occurring. The number of hours performed by men sometimes appears to decrease less as income increases than women. Becker (1965) talks about that this is due to the partnership between income and time work being negatively related but at a shallower rate than before. This shows that the substitution effect for men is quite strong and the income impact is vulnerable.
Becker also analysed the result a wage rate rise could have on the travelling costs for travelling to and from work. As the attained income rises the price tag on commuting also heightens, as the time put in commuting has a higher forgone income cost. This differs from the original view that as income goes up folks are more willing to travel longer distances to work, with this though individuals will also want better real estate. So under Becker's model suggests that the climb in income will mean the commuting cost will conflict with the casing demand, it will be whichever is more important to the individual that will determine the equilibrium level of amount of commuting and enclosure space.
The need for how the family as a unit be a part of labour source model is not focused on by Becker in great details. He will however suggest that families will split activities among themselves regarding to how appropriate they are at doing those activities. "The allocation of your energy of any member is greatly inspired by the opportunities open to other members". This suggests that if a member becomes more efficient in market work then others would reallocate their time to allow the member to engage in market work. A more in-depth analysis of this concept are available in Shelly Lundberg and Robert A. Pollack's journal over the American Family and Family economics. They detected that families have become more heterogeneous and much more susceptible to change their framework, this has meant analysis of them has become more and more difficult. It has been widely seen that gender specialisation in the task task's at home and in market work have been reduced significantly. Women are no longer attempting to stay at home and provide for a family, instead many have professions and don't get worried about engaged and getting married to truly have a family product. Being part of a family is just less important than it has been, mainly due to functions provided by the family like child treatment are actually provided for by their state at a basic level. There are plenty of articles on why the family unit has decreased in proportions and importance, but nearly most of them concentrate on the upsurge in earnings. The rest put emphasis on the changing cultural environment we reside in. The national figures claim that 70% of women now take part in labour market in comparison to only 56% in 1971, this demonstrates that women are now more interested in paid work. The pay distance between women and men has also lowered, women now earn 86% of what men earn. This could suggest that the entire market wage rises over the past 50 years has persuaded women to follow a job and put less importance on having a family. This all links along with Becker's 1965 model, that household activities will be divided up between so that the most efficient level of creation is achieved.
Moving on from Becker's time allocation theory Gronau released a newspaper in 1977 revising Becker's ideas on the subject. Becker's model misses out a whole lot of information about home production, mainly how to distinguish between work at home and leisure. That is in part because of the challenges of distinguishing between your two seemed to stop people from investigating household production. The main aim of (Gronau 1977) is to find the way the family allocates its time within the house. (Gronau 1976) and (Bloch 1973) both does studies into the what affects a man or woman's allocation of time taken between household work, leisure and market work. Gronau and Bloch both found that children may cause the mother to transfer time from market work to home work but also reduce her leisure time. The daddy instead increases hours in market work and in household work, this is performed with a decrease in leisure time.
1
