Per wash load, productivity is $0.47.
<h3>Define productivity.</h3>
A common definition of productivity is the ratio of input volume to output volume. In other words, it assesses how effectively an economy uses labor and capital as production inputs to create a particular amount of output.
Being able to create, especially quickly and with excellent quality, is a sign of productivity. Making excellent school tasks in a short amount of time is an example of productivity. How quickly toys can be produced in a toy factory is an illustration of productivity.
It is computed by dividing a company's outputs by the inputs it used to achieve those outputs.
To learn more about productivity from the given link:
brainly.com/question/22852400
#SPJ4
In the question, continuously should be annually.
Solution:
Applicable formula is;
A = P(1+r)^n
Where;
A = Total amount after 30 years = $9,110
P = Amount invested = $5,000
r = Annual interest rate in decimals
n = Number of years = 30
Substituting;
9110 = 5000(1+r)^30
9110/5000 = (1+r)^30
1.822 = (1+r)^30
Taking natural logs on both sides;
ln (1.822) = 30 ln (1+r)
0.5999 = 30 ln (1+r)
0.5999/30 = ln (1+r)
0.019998 = ln (1+r)
Taking exponents on both sides
e^0.019998 = 1+r
1.0202 = 1+r
r = 1.0202 -1 = 0.0202 =2.02%
Therefore, annual interest rate should be 2.02%.
Realistic conflict theory would be a good explanation for rising prejudice in this situation.
<h3>What do you mean by
Realistic conflict theory ?</h3>
According to the realistic conflict theory, wherever there are two or more groups vying for the same few resources, there will be conflict, false preconceptions and ideas, and prejudice towards the various groups.
Just the perception of competition will foster hostile emotions and discriminating behavior in one group. For instance, whether or not it is accurate, ethnic group A will feel resentment and hatred if it perceives that members of ethnic group B are a threat to them by "taking employment."
Learn more about realistic conflict theory here
brainly.com/question/4511475
#SPJ1
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.
