Answer: simple sugars that the plant uses as fuel
Explanation:
This seems to be an opinion based question, I will provide you with both a yes and no response with arguments to support it and you can choose which one best suites your beliefs:
Yes, the benefits of raising the minimum wage outweigh the drawbacks. By raising the minimum wage you increase the quality of life for workers. Many full time workers are unable to afford housing or groceries in this economy on the minimum wage. At $7.25/hour and 40hrs/week is $290 before taxes. This is not enough income to cover the basic costs of living in most places. If people earned more money they would have more money to spend and corporations would profit from an increase in sales. Also, workers wouldn't have to depend so much on government services such as food stamps and section 8 housing assistance because they would be able to support their families with their own income. This would free up funds for government to provide more for the school systems, better healthcare and/or infrastructure.
No, the benefits of an increased minimum wage would not outweigh the drawbacks. The drawbacks of a higher minimum wage are significant because they most directly effect small business owners. The "mom and pop shop" owners depend on paying low salaries in order to keep their doors open. If they were forced to increase their pay rates, by what many minimum wage supporters suggest: more than double, they would not be able to afford employees to keep their doors open. Also, government agencies would be forced to pay their low-level workers as much as $15/hr which could become a tax burden on the citizens who pay for the salaries of all government employees. Raising the minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy because small companies and the government could not afford to support the salaries and benefits of their workers.
Answer:
...in China.
...on farms, local and conventional.
...for profit.
...by farmers.
Explanation:
I don't really know what your asking, but hopefully this helps some. If you could give me an example of the larger question, that would be great and I could give you a better answer.
Hobbes was a supporter of absolute monarchy, which gave a single person total power over the government and exempted the king from all checks and balances. On the other side, Locke endorsed a more liberal strategy for creating states.
What do the John Locke and Thomas Hobbes theories of the social contract have in common?
Both Locke and Hobbes saw the social compact as being crucial to the political stability of a state. But each of these ideas was based on a very different understanding of human nature.
Why was Locke's viewpoint so much different than Hobbes?
The natural rules revealed by Locke exist in the state of nature, in opposition to Hobbes. Additionally, they are regarded as fundamental aspects of human nature since they violate people's right to personal freedom. A state of conflict is not the same as a state of nature.
Learn more about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes theories: brainly.com/question/1596903
#SPJ4
The Sons of Liberty. In Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers<span> and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty.</span>
