Answer:
<u><em>But where do we go from here? </em></u>
It depends on the result of more government intervention on quality life standards.
<u><em>Do we need less or more government involvement? </em></u>
It depends on the problems that need to be addressed. For example, to address problems such inequality it is mandatory that the government gets involve and create laws to prevent it. But surely for more movement of capitals there is no need of higher government involvement.
<u><em>Is it a question of the quality of that involvement? </em></u>
Yes. If government has an effective involvement there is even desirable to have its intervention but if it complicates everything then is repeled.
<u><em>Could it be smarter rather than just less? </em></u>
Yes, because it is proved that the economy acts in an effective way to good policy making.
<u><em>How can the cost of government involvement decrease?</em></u>
In this aspect it is important to mention the environmental issues in nowadasy economy. If the measurement of what is defined as "cost" is understand in the long run as conservation and balance between nature and economic explotation of resources.
Answer:
What experience do you have in this field of work?
Why do you think you're a good fit for this company/job position?
Explanation:
A problem in developing effective compensation for teams is that rewarding individuals erodes cohesiveness. Thus the first option is correct.
<h3>What is Cohesiveness?</h3>
Cohesiveness refers to the act or the property of togetherness. in the group , cohesiveness can be seen when the group performs the activity. It is important to have cohesiveness in every group for the accomplishment of the task.
When a individual in a group is provided a compensation it leads to dispute and chaos which erodes the cohesiveness of the group. Thus the first option is correct.
Learn more about Cohesiveness here:
brainly.com/question/13774781
#SPJ1
This is a positive statement
