Answer:
The cost of living refers to the prices of goods and services needed to sustain an average level standard of living in an area
Explanation:
The cost of living refers to the cost of keeping up with a given standard of living. It is the amount Jamie would need to keep up with basic expenses such as food, housing, clothing and medical care. Cost of living compares the expense between living in two different areas. Jamie's cost of living is tied to his wages and it can be measured using what is called purchasing power parity.
Answer: $4.24
Explanation:
According to the Put-Call Parity, the value would be expressed by;
Put Price = Call price - Stock price + Exercise price *e^-(risk free rate *T)
T is 90 days out of 365 so = 90/365
= 2.65 - 26 + 28 * 2.71 ^ (-0.06 * 90/365)
= $4.24
Answer:
The correct answer is C.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
$15,000 for factory managers
$18,000 for financial managers
$42,000 for company executives.
$98,000 for factory workers
$64,000 for office workers.
To calculate the labor cost we need to separate between indirect and direct labor:
Indirect labor:
Factory managers (manufactury overhead)= 15,000
Direct labor:
Factory workers= 98,000
Total labor cost= $113,000
Saying that money is indivisible is false. As long as its not a penny, money can be divided down to the last cent
Answer:
The correct option is A, Samantha weed and Adam will rake because these are the goods each has a comparative advantage in.
Explanation:
The opportunity formula comes handy in this case, which is given below:
opportunity cost formula=what one sacrifices/what one gains
If Samantha were to weed flower beds, opportunity cost is computed thus:
Opportunity cost of Samantha weeding flower beds=8/4= 2 bags of leaves raked
The opportunity of Adam weeding flower beds=25/5 =5 bags of leaves raked.
In a nutshell ,if Samantha weeds flowers they would lose 2 bags of leaves raked while if Adam were to do so same, they would lose 5 bags of leaves raked, conclusively Samantha should weed flower beds since she has lower opportunity, higher comparative advantage
