All categories

2 years ago

What happened in 1935 with the United States Congress surrounding employee benefits?

1 answer:

7 0

The social security act was passed by the congress in 1935 which led to the adoption of private pension plans which led the older people to retire and younger ones to come and work.

<u>Explanation:</u>

An act to accommodate the general welfare by building up an arrangement of Federal mature age benefits, and by empowering the few States to make increasingly sufficient arrangement for matured people, daze people, reliant and injured youngsters, maternal and kid welfare, general well being, and the organization of the jobs for the jobless.

The Social Security Act and related laws build up various projects that have the accompanying fundamental purposes: To accommodate the material needs of people and families; To ensure matured and debilitated people against the costs of ailments that may somehow or another utilization up their reserve funds.

You might be interested in

The cob Douglas production function is given by Q(K,L)=AK^1.4*L^1.6

Alexeev081 [22]

Part a) The Cob Douglas production function is given as:

$Q(K,L)=AK^{1.4} L^ {1.6 } .$

To show that this function is homogeneous with degree 3, we introduce be a parameter, t.

$Q(tK,tL)=A(tK)^{1.4} (tL)^ {1.6 } .$

Using properties of exponents, we on tinder:

$Q(tK,tL)=At^{1.4}K^{1.4} t^ {1.6 }L^ {1.6 } .$

This implies that:

$Q(tK,tL)=t^{1.4} \times t^ {1.6 }(AK^{1.4} L^ {1.6 } )$

$Q(tK,tL)=t^{1.4 + 1.6}(AK^{1.4} L^ {1.6 } )$

Simplify the exponent of t to get;

$Q(tK,tL)=t^{3}(AK^{1.4} L^ {1.6 } )$

Hence the function is homogeneous with degree, 3

Part b) To verify Euler's Theorem, we must show that:

$K\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: K}+L\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: L}=3AK^{1.4}L^{1.6}$

Verifying from the left:

$K\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: K}+L\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: L} =K(1.4AK^{0.4} L^{1.6}) + L(1.6AK^{1.4} L^{0.6})$

$K\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: K}+L\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: L} =1.4(AK^{1.4} L^{1.6}) + 1.6(AK^{1.4} L^{1.6})$

$K\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: K}+L\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: L} =(1.4 + 1.6)(AK^{1.4} L^{1.6})$

$K\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: K}+L\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \: L} =3(AK^{1.4} L^{1.6})$

Q•E•D

8 0

2 years ago

The minimum amount required for a federal diversity suit is: a. There is no minimum amount if there is diversity. b. $10,000. c.

natulia [17]

Answer:

d. $75,000

Explanation:

Minimum Claim value to claim in the court for a federal diversity suit is $75,000. It is also called the amount in controversy. For example federal court diversity suit requires a minimum value of claim is $75,000. So, The minimum amount required for a federal diversity suit is $75,000 in the court.

5 0

3 years ago

Rudy bought 10 shares of fat cat, inc. stock on january 1,2017. rudy paid $20 for each share. at first, it appeared that rudy ha

stiv31 [10]

He would would have a short term capital loss of $200 (10 shares at $20 each)

Short term losses are considered losses on assets that have been held for less than 1 year.

6 0

2 years ago

The money supply will grow faster through deposit creation when the required reserve ratio is: a. high and banks hold excess res

Strike441 [17]

Answer:

c. low and banks are unable to loan out all of their excess reserves. d

Explanation:

Lower required reserve ratio means banks have more money to lend. When banks are able to lend all its excess money, then money supply increases for citizens.

7 0

2 years ago

Bruce & Co. expects its EBIT to be $185,000 every year forever. The firm can borrow at 9 percent. Bruce currently has no deb

ivolga24 [154]

Answer:

$751,562.50 and $837,203.125

Explanation:

The formula to compute the value of the firm under the MM proposition approach is shown below:

In first case

= {EBIT × ( 1 - tax rate)} ÷ WACC

= {$185,000 × ( 1 - 0.35)} ÷ 16%

= $120,250 ÷ 16%

= $751,562.50

Since no debt is there which means the firm is unlevered firm and computation is done accordingly.

All other information which is given is not relevant. Hence, ignored it

In second case

= {EBT× ( 1 - tax rate)} ÷ WACC

= {$172,850 × ( 1 - 0.35)} ÷ 16%

= $112,352.50 ÷ 16%

= $702,203.125

EBT = $185,000 - $135,000 × 9%

= $185,000 - $12,150

= $172,850

So, the value of firm would be

= $702,203.125 + $135,000

= $837,203.125

5 0

2 years ago