Answer:
1.33 walls
1 wall
Explanation:
Tradeoff is the opportunity cost of taking a particular decision
Opportunity cost of the next best option forgone when one alternative is chosen over other alternatives
My doing he outlet, the opportunity to paint is forgone
Amy = 8/6 = 1.33
Bill = 5/5
Answer:
C - larger; smaller
Explanation:
Marginal effects usually determine the change in a dependent variable (overall medical spending) based on a change in another variable that affects the dependent one (Spending on preventative care), all things remaining the same. If spending on preventative care is high, the overall medical bill should be low, assuming treatment costs, labor costs of health workers and all other factors are constant. If preventative care spending is low, the overall medical spending will be high.
The marginal effects of overall medical spending on health status is larger in the US. The marginal effects of preventative care spending on health is likely smaller than for overall spending.
Answer:
Explanation:
Here Nicolas will gain comparative advantage only when he is selling the good he is specializing in and he would specialize in that good which would have lower opportunity cost for him. So the first step that we have to do here is to find out for which good Nicolas will have lower opportunity cost.
For Nicolas who in 8 hours can either catch 24 pound of fish or repair 15 cars,
the opportunity cost for catching 1 fish is = 15/24 = .625
the opportunity cost for repairing 1 car is = 24/15 = 1.6
So from the above observation we can say that for Nicolas catching fish has lower opportunity cost for him , so he should specialize in catching fish.
Therefore the term of trade for Nicolas would be
1 fish = .625 cars ,
if he can catch and sell 100 units worth of fish then he would have to give up 62.5 cars and then only he will gain from trade,
1 x 100 fish = .625 x 100
100 fish = 62.5 cars.
The performance management approach that uses job performance evaluations to identify a company's best, average, and worst performing employees, using person-to-person comparisons, is known as "forced ranking".
<h3>What is forced ranking?</h3>
The contentious practice of "forced ranking," which grades employees against one another rather than against performance standards, is very popular in corporate America.
The problem with forced ranking are-
- This can lead to a lack of motivation and disengagement among employees as well as unneeded internal competition that can harm collaboration, creativity, and innovation and divert attention from market competition.
- Although contentious, forced ranking systems are legal. Employers who choose to take action based on those rankings, however, run a number of legal dangers.
The forced rankings beneficial from an employee perspective, here are reasons-
- This system teaches a manager how to assess employees objectively with the right management training.
- When the management system needs to be improved or formalised, forced rankings are advantageous.
- An essential component of business is analysing trends and developments.
To know more about example of forced ranking, here
brainly.com/question/6626507
#SPJ4
