根据以下材料，回答36-40题
The personal grievance provisions of New Zealand's Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) prevent an employer from firing an employee without good cause. Instead, dismissals must be justified. Employers must both show cause and act in a procedurally fair way.
Personal grievance were designed to guard the jobs of ordinary workers from "unjustified dismissals". The premise was that the common law of contract lacked sufficient safeguards for workers against arbitrary conduct by management. Long gone are the days when a boss could simply give an employee contractual notice.
But these provisions create difficulties for businesses when applied to highly paid managers and executives. As countless boards and business owners will attest, constraining firms from firing poorly performing, high-earning managers is a handbrake on boosting productivity and overall performance. The difference between C-grade and A-grade managers may very well be the difference between business success or failure. Between preserving the jobs of ordinary workers or losing them. Yet mediocrity is no longer enough to justify a dismissal.
Consequently — and paradoxically – laws introduced to protect the jobs of ordinary workers may be placing those jobs at risk. if not placing jobs at risk, to the extent employment protection laws constrain business owners from dismissing under-performing managers, those laws act as a constraint on firm productivity and therefore on workers' wages. Indeed, in "An International Perspective on New Zealand's Productivity Paradox"(2014), the Productivity Commission singled out the low quality of managerial capabilities as a cause of the country's poor productivity growth record.
Nor are highly paid managers themselves immune from the harm caused by the ERA's unjustified dismissal procedures. Because employment protection laws make it costlier to fire an employee, employers are more cautious about hiring new staff. This makes it harder for the marginal manager to gain employment. And firms pay staff less because firms carry the burden of the employment arrangement going wrong.
Society also suffers from excessive employment protections. Stringent job dismissal regulations adversely affect productivity growth and hamper both prosperity and overall well-being.
Across the Tasman Sea, Australia deals with the unjustified dismissal paradox by excluding employees earning above a specified "high-income threshold" from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws. In New Zealand, a 2016 private members' Bill tried to permit firms and high-income employees to contract out of the unjustified dismissal regime. However, the mechanisms proposed were unwieldy and the Bill was voted down following the change in government later that year.
It can be inferred that the "high-income threshold" in Australia
?
Australia deals with the unjustified dismissal paradox by excluding employees earning above a specified "high-income threshold" from the protection of its unfair dismissal laws.?澳大利亚通过将收入高于特定"高收入门槛"的员工排除在其不公平解雇法的保护之外，来解决这个不公平的解雇悖论，所以这个"高收入门槛"可以保护公司的利益，C正确。
如何理解今年一季度经常账户逆差的原因和影响？
M 公司是一个无负债公司，其每年预期税息前收益为 10000 元，股东要求的 权益回报率为 16%，M 公司所得税率为 35%，但没有个人所得税，设所有交易 都在完善的资本市场中运行，问： A.M 公司的价值为多少？ B.如果 M 公司借入面值为无负债公司价值的一半的利率为 10%的债务，债务 没有风险，并且所筹集的债务资金全部用于赎回股权，则此时公司的价值变为多 少？而权益资本成本为多少
中美贸易失衡的原因并评价特朗普的贸易政策？
TF 公司正在决定是否执行其豪华办公大楼的建设决定，如果放弃该项权利可以以 5 万美 金的价格转让给开发商。该大楼建设耗资 1000 万美金，两年后可以以 1200 万美金价格卖出。 目前折现率是 10%，但可能变动为 8%或者 12%，两种情况概率对等。如果你是 TF 公司的 CEO，该如何决策？
当前你正在评估一项泰国项目。假设即期汇率1 泰铢=0.5 美金。 泰国通胀率高出美国25%， 即美国通胀 10%的时候，泰国通胀为 12.5%。该项目花费 1000 泰铢，未来三年每年产生 300 泰铢现金流，并在项目结束后以 400 泰铢卖出，该项目对应美金表示现金流适当折现率为 12%。假设相对购买力平价关系成立，求： A.该项目生命期结束预期汇率是多少？ B.该项目以美元表示的净现值是多少？以泰铢表示净现值是多少？
当预期证券市场行情将上升时，市场时机选择者将选择（）的证券组合
对于某只股票而言，判断它的价格是否被低估取决于（ ）值的大小。
某公司普通股的现金股利按照每年 5%的固定速率增长，目前该公司普通股股票的市价为 每股20元，预期下期股利为每股2元，那么该公司以当前价格发行股票筹资的成本为（ ）
