The potential risks that these three groups fall into the same category is that it is a low percentage and it is not a realistic proposition.
According to the theory of 50, 20, 30, a person's salary should be divided into 3 buckets that are:
- 50% of salary must go towards mandatory expenses (housing rent payments, utilities, medical care, basic food, and transportation).
- 20% of the salary must be used for savings and debt payments (programmed savings for old age or a special event, or the payment of debts such as card payments, bank loans, among others).
- 30% of the salary must be allocated for non-priority expenses (it is the expenditure of money on experiences, objects, or others that are not essential for the individual).
This income distribution is unrealistic because most people spend more than 50% of their salary on compulsory expenses, reducing their economic capacity for other purposes.
In this way, the 20% destined to savings and payment of debts would be a minimum amount of the salary, which could have serious consequences such as:
- Inability to pay debts
- Inability to save for the future
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/12198015
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "b. how much to supply, how to produce output, and how much of each input to demand." the three choices that profit-maximizing firms have to make are <span>b. how much to supply, how to produce output, and how much of each input to demand</span>
Answer: As with normal first-class mail, employers cannot read employee e-mail."
Explanation:
From the options given, the correct statements are that:
• Employees have limited protection against surveillance by employers.
• The large majority of organizations monitor employee Internet usage.
• The large majority of organizations use URL filtering.
• Employees should be aware that surveillance is legal.
The option that "as with normal first-class mail, employers cannot read employee e-mail" is incorrect. Employers can read the email of their workers.
Answer:
C and D
Explanation:
My expertise is sucking d1ck #Po4n⭐4life
Based on the scenario above, the economic concept which Frakie is faced with is OPPORTUNITY COST. Opportunity cost refers to a benefit or value that a person could have received but which he gave up in order to take another course of action. Thus, an opportunity cost represents an alternative given up when a decision is made.
