When the New Netherlands sent Henry Hudson on an exploration trip, he claimed rich farmland along the Hudson River.
Answer:
Both are true statements
Explanation:
1st Statement: Changes in the age composition of the labor force will affect the natural rate of unemployment, Yes i agree with this and the example given is a typical scenario for this, Most employers always have age limit or set age barrier when recruiting e.g The clause of must not be more than 26yrs of age, what if the number of youthful workers which applies for these kind of jobs are more than 26 years, it just automatically increases the rate of unemployment, most companies dont want to employ 30+ years of age, such age requirement are always rear and it will be tied to an experience that is needed. so the above statement is true.
2nd statement: An increase in minimum wage can also affect cyclical unemployment, As most companies might not be able afford to make such increase which will can definitely increase cyclical unemployment. So this is tied to the income and affordability of some organizations, so organizations might even sack some to afford the increase in minimum wage , with this, the rate of unemployment has increased, So yes i agree that this statement is true.
Answer:
Brittany will just have to tough it out.
Explanation:
I was addicted to cigarettes as a teenager and as a young man. I quit smoking cold turkey in 1990 because I decided that the price of a pack of cigs was too high. Yes, it's difficult. Quitting smoking is agonizingly uncomfortable. It's three weeks of Hell followed by three months of Purgatory. But if I can do it, so can anyone else. People fail because they decide that their excuses for failure are acceptable. "I'm under stress just now," is an excuse that I often hear. People who make excuses will just keep on failing until they learn that there is no such thing as an acceptable excuse. That's all there is to it.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
A galaxy I think but that seems to simple ?
