Answer:
8.13%
Explanation:
Annual return = [ (Total FV/Initial investment)^(1/n) ] -1
n = useful life of the project
Total Future Value = (22650*5) +5000
Total FV = $118,250
Initial investment = $80,000
Annual return = [ (118,250/80,000)^(1/5) ] -1
r = [ (1.478125^(1/5)] -1
r = 1.0813 - 1
r = 0.0813 or 8.13%
Answer:
The answer to both a and b is in the explanation below
Explanation:
a) The increase in wage can either decrease or increase the hours worked. This is became an increase in wage has both substitution effect and income effect that work in different directions. Substitution effect An increase in wage increases the opportunity cost of leisure, thereby making the worker increase number of hours worked. Income effect The increase in wage also makers the worker richer, thereby making the worker decrease number of hours worked.
Since no information about worker's preferences is given, we do not Imow which effect will dominate the other effect and, therefore, we do not know what the net impact of the increase in wage will be.
b) The bonus will only have income effect. The bonus will make the workers richer, thereby making the worker decrease number of hours worked.
If in part a), the substitution effect and income effect are equal in magnitude, then there will be no change in the number of hours worked. The number of hours worked will remain the same at 2000 hours. Since the employer would be paying $5 extra on each hour worked, the cost to the employer of increase in wage would be $10,000 (=2000 x $5), which is the same as the bonus in part b).
Answer:
a. Increase / Increase
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that there is an increase in taxes and government spending so it represents the positive stimuls as it occurs because the government incurrent all the revenue for the public welfare due to which there is a rise in the government expenditure that boost the aggregate demand also the GDP value would be rise because of the multiplier effect
Therefore the employment level and the rate of interest would also increased
Answer:
Low, high
Explanation:
Texas ranks low in terms of state spending per capita, and it ranks high in terms of how much money it gets from the federal government per capita.
Texas has for long been a low-spending state, often at the expense of some of the most necessary services. The two greatest areas of spending at the state level are public education and health and human services, which together sum up more than half of the state’s All-Funds and General Revenue budgets. Yet, Texas ranks near the bottom in education spending per student and health care spending per patient.
<span>The purpose of life insurance is to deter some of the costs associated with debt and death. For example, someone may die with 20,000 dollars in credit card debt. On top of that, the cost of funeral and other death related expenses may be 15,000 dollars. So this persons family may be left to come up with 35,000 dollars in money to cover the deads expenses. Most people cannot afford this. This is the value of life insurance.
I do feel like everyone should have life insurance, but most people think they cannot afford it.</span>
