Answer:
Contribution per unit of scare resource (in hour) = $24 per hour
Explanation:
The question falls under the limiting factor analysis
<em>When a business is faced with a problem of shortage of a resource which can be used to produced more than one product type, to maximize the use of the resource , the business should allocate it for production purpose in such a way that </em><em>it maximizes the contribution per unit of the scare resource.</em>
Therefore Santario Company should allocate the machine hours to maximize the contribution per unit of machine hour.
Contribution per unit of scare resource is determine as follows:
Contribution per unit of scare resource for Model K-3
Contribution per unit of Model K-3 = $6
Machine time per unit = 15 minutes
<em>Contribution per unit of scare resource in minutes</em>
=Contribution per unit/Machine time per unit
= 46/15 minutes
= $0.4 per minute
Contribution per unit of scare resource (in hour)
$0.4 per minutes× 60
= $24 per hour
Answer: 15 million people were employed.
Explanation:
Hi, to answer this question we have to multiply the adult population (25,000,000) by the labor-force participation percentage in decimal form (divided by 100).
Mathematically speaking:
25,000,000 x (60/100) = 25,000,000 x 0.6 = 15,000,000 people
15 million people were employed.
Feel free to ask for more if needed or if you did not understand something.
Answer:
hedonic Theory of Wages:
Accept just two kinds of occupations in the work showcase (safe employments versus unsafe occupations). Under this, sheltered employments have likelihood of zero that specialist gets harmed. Unsafe occupations have likelihood of 1 and laborers know this. Laborers care about whether their occupations are sheltered or hazardous.
Laborers expand utility by picking wage-chance blends that offer them the best measure of utility. Expect laborers disdain hazard, yet to various degrees, for example they have diverse ideal pay chance blends. Firms are on their isoprofit bends that give the hazard wage mixes that give zero (financial) benefit. They vary between firms. An indulgent pay work mirror the connection among wages and occupation qualities. It matches laborers with various hazard inclinations with firms that can give employments that coordinate these diverse hazard inclinations.
Apathy bends uncover the exchange offs that a laborer favors among wages and level of hazard (chance thought to be an 'awful'). To give a similar utility, dangerous occupations must compensation higher wages than safe employments. The more prominent the laborer's aversion for hazard, the more prominent the pay off required for changing from a safe to an unsafe activity, and the more noteworthy the booking cost. As the pay firms bring to the table for hazardous occupations increments, less firms will extend to dangerous employment opportunities and bringing about a descending slanting interest bend as it turns out to be increasingly productive for firms to make occupations spare than to pay the higher compensation.
Suppositions of Differential Wage Theory are:
- The compensation differential is sure. Hazardous employments pay more than spare occupations.
- The balance wage differential is that of the last laborer employed (the peripheral specialist). It's anything but a proportion of the normal abhorrence for chance among laborers in the work showcase.
- Along these lines, everything except the minimal specialist are overcompensated by the market.
On the off chance that a few specialists like to work in dangerous occupations (they are eager to pay for the option to be harmed) and if the interest for such laborers is little, the market repaying differential is negative. At point P, where supply rises to request, laborers utilized in unsafe occupations acquire not as much as laborers utilized in safe employments. The outline given beneath shows the circumstance:
Isoprofit Curve:
As it is exorbitant to create well-being, a firm contribution hazard level P* can make the working environment more secure for example move left on flat pivot, just on the off chance that it diminishes compensation while keeping benefits consistent, so that the iso-benefit bend is upward slanting. Higher isoprofit bend returns lower benefit.
Answer:
The answer is Credit.
Explanation:
Net loss can be thought of as a <u>Credit </u>to the Capital account.
Answer:
The operating cash flow in this transaction is zero
Explanation:
Please see attachment.