Answer: Compensating differentials.
Explanation:
Compensating differential is the additional amount of money that a worker is given in order to motivate the worker to accept an undesirable job. Compensating differentials is as a result of the risk of injury, risk of future unemployment, risk of unsafe environment and it explains why there is difference in pay between different regions
Even though Max and Eli have the same skill and are members of the same trade union, Max is paid higher than Eli because Max works in an area with high crime rate while Eli's area has a low crime rate. Thus, Max higher is expected because the cost of living is higher in a city and also due to higher crime rates which means he's likely to work mire than Eli.
Answer: Jose has to pay $600.
Explanation:
Jose has to pay $600 to Jane for her inconvenience.
In Accordance with Coase theorem, when two conflicting parties exist, one has to ‘buy the right’ from the other party.
Which In this scenario or case, Jane has the ‘right to prevent Jose from having a dog’.
Thus, Jose has to pay compensation to Jane so that he can keep his dog and at the same time Jane is also compensated for the inconvenience which may arise later.
Answer:
The correct answer is $56,000.
Explanation:
According to the scenario, the given data are as follows:
Average checks per day = $14,000
Days in clearing = 4 days
Interest rate = 0.018% per day
So, we can calculate the company's float by using following formula:
Company's Float = Average checks per day × Days in clearing
By putting the value in the formula, we get
Company's Float = $14,000 × 4
= $56,000
Answer:A pair of sandals.
Explanation:Its so obvious stating that the marginal utility derived from sandals is higher compared to the other two items. You maximize your utility by going for the item with highest satisfaction which is glaringly sandals.
You also maximize your utility by considering the item which is economica prudent to one needs or want.
Answer:
b. They are treated differently because the loss in value of Carol's stock is the result of a sale, while the loss in value of Dave's stock is simply a decline in value.
Explanation:
Although the stock owned by Carol and by Dave declines in value by $2,000, however Carol only has a realized and recognized loss of $2,000. The main factor in determining whether a disposition has taken place often whether an identifiable event has occurred. In the current scenario, Carol’s stock sale qualifies as a disposition and the Dave’s stock value decline does not qualify as a disposition and is simply a decline in value.
