The labor force that can be depicted from the information about the people will be 36.
<h3>How to calculate the labor force</h3>
The labor force will be:
= 25 + 8 + 3
= 36
The unemployment rate will be:
= Unemployed/Labor force × 100
= 3/36 × 100
= 8.33%
The participation rate will be:
= Labor force/Adult population × 100
= 36/(80 - 16) × 100
= 56.25%
Learn more about the labor force on:
brainly.com/question/24939447
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Intel is a major computer hardware supplier in the world, and its friend Microsoft buys hardware parts from them which it uses in manufacturing computers such as processor chips.
In respect to the bargaining power of suppliers in Porter's five forces model of industry competition, Intel acts as a supplier to Microsoft. And because of Intel's bargaining power like its market dominance and limited competitors, it can set prices which the–Microsoft has no choice but to purchase.
Answer:
$984.50
Explanation:
Cost of bond at closing = Par value * % Bond traded last
Cost of bond at closing = 1000 * 98.45%
Cost of bond at closing = $984.50
Thus, the cost of bond at closing is $984.50
The federal home loan bank act program helped <span>people refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates so as to avoid bankruptcy.
When you refinance your home, you are able to stretchy out the payments for more years again which allows for easier payments to be made. Most who struggle, can't afford the dollar amount they are supposed to be paying and now can afford it much easier. </span>
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
