Answer: develop a reentry plan for Pete prior to the completion of the overseas assignment.
Explanation:
The options to the question are:
A. develop a reentry plan for Pete prior to the completion of the overseas assignment.
B. limit communication to every-other-month status phone calls so as to not micromanage Pete.
C. save costs by avoiding a "look-see" trip for Pete and his family, given Pete's enthusiasm.
D. develop performance measures after Pete had completed his first year.
E. develop the assignment "on the fly" given the uncertainties involved.
From the question, we are informed that Sandra Stone, Vice President of International Operations for Global Apparel Corporation, was working with her subordinate, Pete Thompson, to plan for his upcoming 18-month overseas assignment to the firm's new office in Rome.
We are further told that based upon her experience with previous failed overseas assignments, she was taking steps to avoid another failure. Therefore, one of the key features of Sandra's plan for Pete was to develop a reentry plan for Pete prior to the completion of the overseas assignment. This will help to prevent another failed overseas assignment.
Answer:
lowering taxes raises disposable income allowing the consumer or adult to spend additional sums.
Answer:
Permits will be the best option
Explanation:
Assuming the cost per ton of polution reduction follows a linear progression and it can reach zero
<u>The best option will be the permits:</u>
As Firm B will eliminate their polution and sale his permis to Firm A
That occur as Firm B is more efficient in doing this will sale to Firm A
In the end Firm A will have all the permits and continue to produce 200 tons
but Firm B will produce none achieving the goal of 50% reduction with the least economic impact.
This is a market solution which little intervention from the Gvernment
Cost to eliminate 200 polution with permits:
200 x $10 = 2,000
If we force each company to reduce pollution Firm A higher cost will create deadweight-loss
100 x $20 = 2,000
100 x $10 = <u> 1,000</u>
3,000
Answer:
Yes, this is an increase in demand
Explanation:
Demand increased from 10 watches per week to 35 watches per week.
This is an increase in demand and it was induced by the drop in price from $75 to $50.
Consumers tend to buy more at lower price and tend to reduce their demand at higher price. This is the law demand.
Higher price reduces consumers' purchasing power.
