A minimum wage can purpose advantage and disadvantage price-push inflation.elevating wages reduces expensive employee turnover and will increase productivity.
Elevating the federal minimal wage to an hour is a coverage purpose for many lawmakers. growing the minimal salary is expected to lift people out of poverty and enhance work ethic, however, it also comes with many feasible negative implications, which include inflation and a loss of jobs.Elevating the federal minimal wage may even stimulate customer spending, help corporations' bottom lines, and grow the financial system it might additionally raise the overall financial system by using producing extended patron demand.
Elevating wages reduces expensive employee turnover and will increase productivity. while the minimal salary is going up, employers can obtain such benefits without being positioned at a competitive disadvantage, because all groups of their field are required to do the identical.
A minimum wage can purpose price-push inflation. this is because corporations face an growth in charges that are in all likelihood to be passed on to clients. that is even more likely if wage differentials are maintained.
Learn more about wage here:-brainly.com/question/26699459
#SPJ4
Answer:
The Common Good Ethics Approach.
Explanation:
It is been argued that the best society is been guided by the people's general will.This was postulated by a French philosopher by name Jean Jacques Rousseau who lived in the year 1712 to 1778.
This approach to Ethics empathizes respect and compassion for others,most especially those vulnerable.
The employers ability to voice out their grievances,suggestions and contributions to the daily running of the organisation coupled alongside the mangers compassion and respect for all individuals confirms to my first statement which says 'The best society is been guided by the people's will ' and that supports the common good Approach.
Answer:
C) ABC 5% and DEF 5.7%
Explanation:
Data provided in the question:
Purchasing Cost of Stock ABC purchased = $40 per share
Purchasing Cost of Stock DEF purchased = $35 per share
Time = 6 months
Selling price of share of ABC = $42 per share
Selling price of DEF share = $36
Dividend paid to the DEF = $0.5 each quarter i.e $0.5 twice in 6 months
Thus,
Total dividend paid to DEF = $0.5 × 2
= $1
Now,
For ABC
Total return = Selling price - Purchasing Cost
= $42 - $40
= $2 per share
thus,
Holding period return = [ Total return ÷ Purchasing cost ] × 100%
= [ $2 ÷ $40 ] × 100%
= 5%
For DEF
Total return = Selling price + Dividend received - Purchasing Cost
= $36 + $1 - $35
= $2 per share
thus,
Holding period return = [ Total return ÷ Purchasing cost ] × 100%
= [ $2 ÷ $35 ] × 100%
= 5.7%
Hence,
option C) ABC 5% and DEF 5.7%.
Answer:
The answer is: B) The statement is false. A decrease in the price of digital cameras would decrease the demand for non-digital cameras, but a decrease in the price of non-digital cameras would not cause the demand for non-digital cameras to decrease.
Explanation:
Suppose we are not currently living in 2019, instead we are back 12 years to 2007 (before the iPhone). Back then , digital cameras were still used by common "unprofessional" users. Digital cameras were an improvement compared to non-digital cameras, so the price of non-digital cameras were much lower than their digital counterparts.
If the price of digital cameras decreased, then the price of non-digital cameras would decrease also. For example, if luxury car companies like Mercedes Benz started selling sedan cars for $20,000, Ford and Chevrolet would be forced to lower the price of their cars since they wouldn't be able to compete with MB at the same price.
But a decrease in the price of non-digital cameras would never decrease their demand. Something else would have caused that decrease. Probably digital cameras became so cheap that everyone could afford one and since they were so much better than non-digital cameras, people simply stopped buying non-digital cameras.
Businesses good but very hard.
