Answer:
The criticism is true to a certain degree, and unjustified to another degree.
Explanation:
It is true in the sense that the U.S. has indeed lost a lot of manufacturing to Mexico, simply because Mexico has far lower labor costs, and U.S. manufacturers have decided to take advantage of that by taking their plants to Mexican states.
It is also true that Mexico has been running a trade surplus with the United States in recent years, mainly because of the large manufacturing sector that Mexico has been developing.
On the other hand, the criticism is unjustified because neither a trade deficit nor the moving of manufacturing to Mexico mean that the United States as a whole is in worst condition than before NAFTA. In fact, most economists agree that free trade is a good thing for the economy as a whole, and that most people benefit from the lower costs and specialization that trade brings about.
The problem lies then, in the people who lose their jobs: formerly unionized manufacturing workers from the Rust Belt, for example. These people need to be helped with government assitance, both in terms of welfare, and training, so that they can find new jobs and make ends meet in the meanwhile.
Answer:
girl no brainly is for school not dating
Explanation:
.
Answer:
Your opportunity cost of attending a game compared with the opportunity cost facing a college student 10 years ago is:
A) higher, because more games are televised today.
Opportunity costs are the cost of choosing one alternative from another.
In this case, when college students attend college football games they are unable to do other activities, not only while they are at the stadium or going to the stadium, but they are not able to purchase other goods. The cost of those alternatives that are lost are higher now because many college football games are televised now, before if you wanted to see a game you had to go to the game. So a student is now able to watch the game while doing other activities, or saving money for buying something else.
Can this change in opportunity cost account for the decline in college football attendance?
B) Yes, because these changes increase the opportunity cost of watching football games in person.
Even though opportunity costs do not involve actual cash payments, they are still important and individuals do consider them when they are choose one option over another. E.g. imagine if you had to choose between spending a considerable amount of money by attending a game (ticket, gas, beverages, etc.) or watching that game on TV and buying a few clothes instead or going on a date, etc. What option would you choose?
Answer:
There is something wrong with this question because October to February is not four months, it's five months.
We can calculate this assuming 3 months of 2016 (October, November, December) and 2 months of 2016 (November and December).
- 3 months of 2016 = ($22,400 / 4 months) x 3 months = $16,800
- 2 months of 2016 = ($22,400 / 4 months) x 2 months = $11,200
No option is correct.
