Answer: The stereotypes have led Dawn to seek out companies that value Gender Egalitarianism. Therefore the answer is TRUE. Option A.
Explanation: Gender Egalitarianism simply refers to the phenomenon whereby there is equality among both sexes, and a situation in which both sexes, regardless of gender, possess equal access to opportunities without discrimination.
Gender Egalitarianism can also be referred to as Gender Equality.
In a society with high Gender Egalitarianism, the following can be observed:
1. Women are key decision makers.
2. Women have attained the same level of education as men.
3. Women are in more positions of authority.
4. Women are segregated less in the workplace.
The two forces are:
1. Falling barriers to trade and investments: Many countries of the world now allow their countries to engage in trade with other countries, this has led to increase in globalization of markets and production.
2.Technological innovations: technology has made so many things possible in the business world today.The whole world has been linked up by internet and this makes it easier for a company to market its products to the whole world.
Answer:
D. Spending more money than you have in your account
Explanation:
An overdraft occurs when money is withdrawn from a bank account and the available balance goes below zero. In this situation the account is said to be "overdrawn".
Answer:
cost of goods manufactured= $653,500
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Consider Derek's budget information: materials to be used totals $65,100; direct labor totals $198,700; factory overhead totals $393,700; work in process inventory January 1, $188,500; and work in progress inventory on December 31, $192,500.
cost of goods manufactured= beginning WIP + direct materials + direct labor + allocated manufacturing overhead - Ending WIP
cost of goods manufactured= 188,500 + 65,100 + 198,700 + 393,700 - 192,500= $653,500
Answer:
Yes, Rawls could collect.
Explanation:
It is possible that Rawls collects damages due to negligence. This is due to the fact that the main cause of the accident was not substantiated by the Progressive Northern Insurance Company. The company claimed that the accident could have been caused by a series of events and the company was also not certain about the main cause of the accident.