craig thought he could earn $1,000 selling paintings in 6 months. instead, he made $1,200. what is the percentage difference?

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions solidified the idea that the ADEA is designed specifically to protect older workers from dis

Lyrx [107]

Answer:

True

Explanation:

There are several Supreme Court Rulings regarding the ADEA during the past two decades, most of them concerning technical issues, but the most straightforward ruling regarding the question is:

General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that the purpose of the ADEA is to prevent discrimination against older workers in benefit of younger workers, but it does not prevent discrimination against younger workers in benefit of older workers.

7 0

2 years ago

An investment project has annual cash inflows of $4,300, $4,000, $5,200, and $4,400, for the next four years, respectively. The

xeze [42]

Answer:

1.64 years

2.27 years

3.13 years

Explanation:

Discounted payback calculates the amount of time it takes to recover the amount invested in a project from it cumulative discounted cash flows

Present value of cash flow in year 1 = 4300 / 1.13 = 3805.31

Amount recovered in year 1 = -5800 + 3805.31 = -1994.69

Present value of cash flow in year 2 = 4000 / (1.13^2) = 3132.59

Amount recovered in year 2 =-1994.69 + 3132.59 = 1137.90

Payback period = 1 + 1994.69/3132.59 = 1.64 years

B

Present value of cash flow in year 1 = 4300 / 1.13 = 3805.31

Amount recovered in year 1 = -7900 + 3805.31 = -4094.69

Present value of cash flow in year 2 = 4000 / (1.13^2) = 3132.59

Amount recovered in year 2 = -4094.69 + 3132.59 = -962.10

Present value of cash flow in year 3 = 5200 / (1.13^3) = 3603.86

Amount recovered in year 3 = -962.10 + 3603.86 = 2641.76

Payback period = 2 years + -962.10 / 3603.86 = 2.27 years

C

Present value of cash flow in year 1 = 4300 / 1.13 = 3805.31

Amount recovered in year 1 = -10900 + 3805.31 = -7094.69

Present value of cash flow in year 2 = 4000 / (1.13^2) = 3132.59

Amount recovered in year 2 = -7094.69 + 3132.59 = -3962.10

Present value of cash flow in year 3 = 5200 / (1.13^3) = 3603.86

Amount recovered in year 3 = -3962.10 + 3603.86 = -358.24

Present value in year 4 = 4400 / (1.13^4) = 2698.60

Amount recovered in year 4 = -358.24 + 2698.60 = 2340.36

Payback period = 3 years + 358.24 + 2698.60 = 3.13 years

7 0

2 years ago

You are a self-employed profit-maximizing consultant specializing in monoplies. Five single-price, profit-maximizing monopolies

inna [77]

Answer:

Firm A

Firm A is charging a cost of $3.90 for every unit. The normal expense is the all out cost separated by amount which ends up being $3.70 per unit. Presently its minor income is $3.00 per unit and negligible expense is $2.90 per unit. The imposing business model firm can't create enough yield in light of the fact that the minor income surpasses the minimal expense.

Consequently, Firm A is encouraged to expand its yield. This will bring increasingly net income and get it a higher benefit. The yield should increment till minimal income and negligible expense gets equivalent.

Firm B

Firm B is charging a cost of $5.90 for every unit. The normal expense is $4.74 per unit. Presently its peripheral expense is $5.90 per unit. Note that the syndication firm is charging a value which is equivalent to the negligible expense. Consequently, it is carrying on seriously. by delivering more and charging less.

Consequently, Firm An is encouraged to diminish its yield. This will expand cost more than the expansion in cost with the goal that it acquires a higher benefit. The yield should diminish till minimal income and minor expense gets equivalent.

Firm C

Firm C is charging a cost of $11.00 for every unit. The normal expense is the all out expense is $11.90 per unit. Minimal income is $9.00 per unit and minor expense is $9.00 per unit. The imposing business model firm is delivering a benefit expanding yield on the grounds that the minor income rises to the peripheral expense. Nonetheless, it is bearing misfortunes since normal expense is higher than cost.

Thus, Firm C is encouraged to stay at the present degree of yield. It can close down over the long haul if misfortunes keep on happening. This is on the grounds that it can't increment or diminishing its yield as it will just alumni the misfortunes.

Firm D

Firm D is charging a cost of $35.90 for every unit. The normal expense is additionally 35.90 per unit. The minor income is $37.90 per unit and negligible expense is $37.90 per unit. The imposing business model firm is creating a benefit amplifying yield on the grounds that the minor income approaches the peripheral expense. Strangely, its cost is not as much as its negligible income which is beyond the realm of imagination.

Thus, Firm D has fouled up estimations with respect to its cost. Thoughtfully, the cost ought to consistently be higher than the minimal income or at most extreme it tends to be equivalent to minor income. It ought to return and recalculate the cost.

Firm E

The information identified with the minor income and minimal expense for Firm E isn't given. The cost charged is $35.00 per unit. The normal expense is at its base level and is equivalent to $33.00 per unit. This data isn't adequate to distinguish if the firm is working at a benefit boosting level.

Therefore, Firm E is encouraged to stay at the present degree of yield.

6 0

3 years ago

Firm A is being acquired by Firm B for $35,000 worth of Firm B stock. The incremental value of the acquisition is $2,500. Firm A

LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

option (b) $34,789

Explanation:

Data provided in the question:

Worth of Firm A = $35,000

Incremental value of the acquisition = $2,500

Number of shares of Firm A outstanding = 2,000

Price of Firm A shares = $16 per share

Number of shares of Firm B outstanding = 1,200

Price of Firm B shares = $40 per share

Now,

Number of shares issued = Worth of Firm A ÷ Price per share of Firm B

= $35,000 ÷ $40

= 875 shares

Value per share after merger

= [ (1,200 × $40) + ( 2,000 × $16 ) + $2,500 ] ÷ [ 1,200 + 875 ]

= $82,500 ÷ 2,075

= $39.759

Therefore,

The Actual cost of acquisition

= Number of shares issued × Value per share after merger

= 875 × $39.7588

= $34788.95 ≈ $34,789

Hence,

The answer is option (b) $34,789

4 0

3 years ago

Keisha is renting a one-bedroom apartment but allows her best friend to move in and pay $200 per month to sleep on the couch for

sasho [114]

Answer:

It would be A. None of these items.

Explanation:

Insurance would never cover a TV, headphones, and two laptops.

6 0

2 years ago