Answer:
The answer is $34.36
Explanation:
FV = PV x (1 + R x ((1 + r))^T = $22.6 x (1 + {($1.5 / $22.60) x [1 + (18% / 2)]}^6 = $34.36
Answer and Explanation:
Unemployment rate = (Unemployed/Labor force)*100
Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor force/Adult population)*100
Labor force = number of unemployed + number of employed
Adult population = employed + unemployed + not in the labor force
When homemakers are included in the labor force as employed then the unemployment rate would go down, labor force would increase and so the labor force participation rate would increase.
The unemployment rate would decrease and the labor force participation rate would increase.
Answer:
Effect of Transaction on Cash Flows
Effects Amount
1. Cash Payment $239,000
2. Cash Receipt $252,000 (12000*$21)
3. Cash Receipt $91,400
4. Cash Payment $491,000
5. Cash Payment $86,000
6. Cash Receipt $188,100 (190,000*0.99)
7. Cash Payment $353,400 (6,200*$57)
8. Cash Payment $36,100 [1.90*(23,000-4,000)]
<span>As a marketing student, I can deny that there is a narrow range of career options given the fact that marketing consists of digital marketing, traditional marketing, and most importantly, sales.
Sales is literally in EVERYTHING, regardless of whether or not you're actually selling something. In Daniel H. Pink's book, "To Sell is Human," he outlines that even nurses, doctors, and teachers utilize non-sales selling techniques to convince patients and students to deem the information they are telling them as important.
Additionally, you must consider the fact that you have to market yourself to even get a job. You need to understand what makes X, Y, and Z appealing. Marketing is extremely meaningful in everyone's lives.</span>
Hello,
Question - The U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Bagley compels the prosecution to disclose any evidence that the _________ requests.
Answer - "evidence that the defense requests"
Why - "Bagley claimed that the government had violated his due process rights by withholding evidence that the defense could have utilized to impeach the witnesses. The district court held that the evidence was not material because the outcome would have been the same. "
