This seems backwards.
Yep, you read right, and yeah, it's nuts.
It also implies that Tom's state is going to end up with any messy industries that have to go somewhere, but that no voter wants in their back yard.
Congressional elections work much differently than presidential elections. My vague impression is that nuts-and-bolts level concerns like what industries go in what state are handled by Congress, not the president.
Congressional elections work much differently than presidential elections. My vague impression is that nuts-and-bolts level concerns like what industries go in what state are handled by Congress, not the president.
No, actually, the federal government doesn't do all that much to determine what industries go into which states. Mostly its private decision making. Businesses are generally free to locate their operations or management wherever they want to. Of course, some businesses, like gambling, are illegal in some localities or they can get more favorable treatment in certain locations rather than others, but typically the federal government doesn't make those decisions.
Now I just have to think of a way to employ people normally and trick them in to thinking that the income they're making is "passive"...
Make a rule how much money you give them each month... and then another rule saying that you will only give them 50% of that amount in that month, and 10% of that amount in the following five months. Explain that this way, even if they take a vacation one month, they will still get "passive income" from the previous months.
Or to make it easier, use normal employment rules, just rename vacation as "days of passive income". And as a bonus, if you don't spend them all this year, you can have more the next year. Just think how cool it will be to collect your "days of passive income" from 50 years of work!
If a job is worth much more that the minimum wage, you could simply give them 1/2 of the salary, and let them have 1/2 of the year as a vacation... just call it "days of passive income" again. Sure, the salary is smaller that the competition would offer them, but working for you they get the passive income!
Now seriously...
The idea of "passive income" is so attractive, because it comes with a sense of freedom. The passive income is usually not the only part of the package; there is typically more involved. Such as: you decide the speed of your work; you can take a free day anytime you want; you don't have a boss micromanaging you or inflexible company rules.
Even without the passive income, I would love to have a work where I could just take a day off, anytime I need, any number of days in the year, just for the cost of losing 1/20 of my monthly income (or reasonably more, to cover company the fixed costs of employing me). A job where I can negotiate about getting 10 more days of vacation in a year, without sounding like an alien from a different planet (possibly from a planet where people have life, dreams, and projects, instead of being fully devoted corporate drones). Things like this are typically included in the package labeled "passive income" and they are a significant part of what makes the package attractive.
Just provide the other things typically associated with passive income, and your employees will love you. Of course if you add to the mix some rule that says "I will give you part of the money now, and part later" and call it "passive income", this will make the deal even more sweet.
A number of years ago my wife worked as a sales associate for AFLAC. Part of their model is that you continue to earn commission on every policy you sell for as long as the policy is active. So, if you sell a bunch of policies and the people keep on paying for them for a number of years, that income after the first year is passive income. They made a big deal out of that aspect of compensation during recruitment and to keep people motivated. I think they said something like "if you work here for 5 years you'll get paid for 10." So, some companies have figured out that business model.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I'm a little skeptical about this: "Attendees will be surrounded by other ambitious, successful, practically-minded folks"
Can I get some evidence?