Answer:
the destruction of jobs due to labor skills of certain workers becoming obsolete.
Explanation:
Social costs in economic thinking are the amount of the personal costs accrued as a component of an activity as well as the expenses levied on customers as a function of becoming subject to the activity in which they are not paid. That is the sum of private and institutional expenses, in other terms.
Due to economic growth, demand has been rising for commodities leading to technology improvements which further leads to lower demands for labor and joblessness. However, majority of the economists states that technological improvement only enhances employment opportunities and joblessness occurs for a temporary period.
Take $1,150,000 multiply by 15% to get the money increase between 1 years which is $172500 then take $1,150,000 subtract by $172,500 to get the final sales in 2015 which is $977,500
Answer:
Quan is a giver and Roland is a taker
Explanation:
A giver is someone who considers the needs of others before his needs. They support others without expecting anything in return. They are at the receiving end of interaction. In a workplace, they are not concerned about their success but give preference to uplifting and helping co-workers. Quan displays traits of a giver.
Takers, on the other hand, put their needs ahead of others. They try to gain maximum with minimum efforts. Roland displays traits of a taker.
Answer:
Complete at least 10 qualifying transactions (including debit card purchases, online bill payments and direct deposits) within 60 days of opening your account. The account must remain open for six months, or Chase may deduct the bonus at closing. When you'll get it: Within 10 business days of completing requirements.
Answer:
- I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting and do some research.
Explanation:
<em>I think Ben is right</em>. Even though the statement is technically correct, it may mislead customers.
Customers may interpret the phrase "<em>no sugar added</em>" as if the product did not contain any sugar.
Thus, customers interested in drinking beverages without sugar at all might think they are "safe" consuming the smoothie beverage, when in reallity each <em>smoothie's bottle contains sugar 35 g of naturally occurring sugars from the fruit.</em>
Customers deserve to be certain on what they are buying, thus the labels must be a sincere help for them, and not ambiguos at all.
This is a "gray zone" and an example of what in ethics is called a dilema.
I think the decision should be shared by a wider team and based on some research.
I think Ben should encourage the Senior Management to call a multidisciplynary meeting, where the subject is widely discussed. Also, I would suggest Ben to do some research, look for precedents about labeling in the industry, and try to learn the opinion of the FDA about this sensitive matter.
