You are on page 1of 1

# 42 PA R T I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

FIGURE 2-10
Food
consumption Utility Maximization for
(dollars)
Sarah When the TANF guaran-
\$20,000 tee is \$5,000, the optimal
choice for Sarah is to take
1,910 hours of leisure and con-
(1,655 hours, sume \$5,450 (at point A). When
\$4,725) the guarantee falls to \$3,000,
(1,910 hours,
she reduces her leisure to
\$5,450)
1,655 hours, and her consump-
10,000 tion falls to \$4,725 (at point B).

6,000 A
5,000
B

3,000

## 0 1,000 1,400 2,000 Leisure (hours)

FIGURE 2-11

Food
consumption Utility Maximization for
(dollars) Naomi Because Naomi val-
\$20,000 ues leisure more highly relative
to consumption than Sarah in
Figure 2-10, she chooses
2,000 hours of leisure regard-
(2,000 hours, less of the TANF guarantee. The
\$5,000) reduction in guarantee therefore
lowers Naomis consumption
10,000 (2,000 hours, from \$5,000 (at point A) to
\$3,000) \$3,000 (at point B).

6,000 A
5,000

3,000 B

## 0 1,000 1,400 2,000 Leisure (hours)

The first mother, Sarah, has a utility function of the form U 100 ln(C)
175 ln(L), where C is consumption, L is leisure, and ln is the natural log-
arithmic function. Sarah values both consumption and leisure, but she values
leisure somewhat more. Figure 2-10 shows her indifference curves and budget
constraint. When the guarantee is \$5,000, Sarah chooses to consume 1,910