Another financial literacy test

[GravitySucks]

Dang it, 19/20. Misread a question. I mark unemployed as 6miths did and it is still listing 24 unemployed. Odder is 44 to 50,000 m
Femal / male ratio.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[mountaintosea]

20 correct. But stats the same. How valid can it be?

 

[DROPOUT]

95% here

 

[Corporateburnout]

100%. All were obvious except for a couple that I had to think about.

Much more interesting test than the other one.

 

[rodi]

It won't grade my results. I answered all 20 questions, answered the demographic info at the beginning of the test... and it tells me to fill in the question marked in RED... there is no question marked in red.

I'll assume I got 100%. LOL

 

[MRG]

It won't grade my results. I answered all 20 questions, answered the demographic info at the beginning of the test... and it tells me to fill in the question marked in RED... there is no question marked in red.

I'll assume I got 100%. LOL

You broke it!

 

[mickeyd]

100% again! Why was it not like this when it really counted back in 62-66?

 

[Katsmeow]

95%. Missed No. 12 where I second guessed myself.

 

[ejman]

95%. Another first question flunkie. Somehow fast food and high quality have a hard time coexisting in my book.

 

[gauss]

Easy test once you realize it is from an economics education organization (ie classical idealized economic theory will drive correct answers).

I misread Q15 and only got 95% - darn it.

-gauss

 

[gauss]

I think that more competition is needed in the "economic quiz" sector given the quality of either their data gathering/calculations or outreach performance.

I am of course referring tongue-in-cheek to the 44 female respondent statistic.

 

[makincaid]

100% here, but I could see how a couple of the questions could have misleading if I overthought them.

 

[Maenad]

95% here. Also missed #3. I think the number of women and number of unemployed may be "stuck", since they're still at 45 and 24, or whatever.

 

[scrabbler1]

95% here. I got #12 wrong. I was teetering between whether or not consumers determine who produces goods and services. In the end, isn't it the choice of the producer?

 

[HFWR]

100% again! Why was it not like this when it really counted back in 62-66?

Proof that life and experience are good teachers...

 

[Totoro]

95% here. I got #12 wrong. I was teetering between whether or not consumers determine who produces goods and services. In the end, isn't it the choice of the producer?

Many questions were a bit awkardly put.

For example: In a strict logic sense, only producers produce, so they choose to produce. On the other hand, if noone buys what a producer produces, he won't produce for very long. So only producers that make what consumers will buy survive. In that sense, only consumers in the end decide what gets produced Unless you have a stubborn producer with really deep pockets ..

But if no producers show up to produce, nothing will get made at all and consumers won't be able to buy anything. So it must be both

Anyway, had to put on my "don't overthink" cap.

 

[BTravlin]

95% here but I question their opinion of fast food so I think I deserve 100%.

 

[nvestysly]

95% here but I question their opinion of fast food so I think I deserve 100%.

Same here - 95% and fast food answer doesn't hold true in all cases. Yes, their definition/answer is the classic economics answer - prices will drop and quality will improve. However, I have not found that to be true in all cases in my area.

 

[Letj]

20 out of 20. I think those questions are relatively easy for anyone with a financial background.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Totoro]

95% here but I question their opinion of fast food so I think I deserve 100%.

I think the reasoning is:

Fast food restaurant comes in, which is lowest cost and of a certain quality.

Restaurants with same quality as fast food has two choices:
* Match prices
* Improve quality

.. or go bankrupt / work for a pittance.

Assuming they don't go bankrupt and since you can't compete on price with mcd ==> prices go down (eat at mcd), and quality goes up (eat anywhere else).

But again indeed the question is formulated rather badly since the right answer actually begins with "It depends .."

 

[freebird5825]

17/20
I answered "Don't know" on 2 of the 3 I got wrong. I figured if I did not guess and honestly didn't know, I would not be penalized.

I want a recount !!!!

 

[rodi]

95% here. Also missed #3. I think the number of women and number of unemployed may be "stuck", since they're still at 45 and 24, or whatever.

I'm both (female and unemployed) and it won't take my answers... so there you go.

 

[HFWR]

But again indeed the question is formulated rather badly since the right answer actually begins with "It depends .."

Ceteris paribis...

 

[devans0]

I "aced" it but still know that Q#1 is wrong. When all the fast food places are desperately trying to hire (high growth) from a limited pool of workers, the quality of worker diminishes and so does the food...

The workers in fast food places EARN every penny they get IMO. If you work their, please dont take my comment as an insult.

 

[petershk]

Devans: yeah I agree. I also think that fast food places pressure local places to drop their prices to compete and that lowers overall quality imo.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app