Not OP, but I think of jobs like theirs as being about marginal utility - how much better off is the world if trades are executed .001 seconds faster? It seems that for a lot of jobs the answer is not at all.
895 karma · joined November 16, 2015
The same is true with a board that's focused on short-term shareholder value. I would argue that worker representation would lean towards the long-term vs. shareholders.
While you are unable to audit any given donor, you are able to audit most DAF program providers by reading their 990 tax form. Here is an example for Charles Schwab, mentioned in the article. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/31-1640316
Even if the 990 is not publicly published, it is required by the IRS and can be audited.
>See for example this story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/14/new-york-attorne....
This is less likely to happen with a DAF program because they are managed by 3rd parties with reputations to protect. A properly ran DAF program will research and vet all grantee organizations prior to making a gift, and can (and will) reject donor grant requests if they are found to violate the law/DAF mission.
That's a funny example, as it can be read both literally ("I like it."), and passive-aggressively ("I don't dislike it."). So while double negatives might not be grammatically incorrect, they are often ambiguous.
Ironic racism/bigotry inevitably attracts people that aren't in on the joke.
"If the USA didn't take land from the Native Americans, who is to say that someone else wouldn't?"
(I assume your friend knows about these services, this is an FYI others.)
https://www.verywell.com/internet-relay-services-1046808#typ...
>Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
There’s more, but the above covers a good chunk of it.
[0] https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court...
Someone is going to die because of this.
>Huawei engineers and executives also make regular visits to U.S. carriers to show off new technology, and the potential cost savings are “significant”—sometimes even half off competitors’ prices, says one former U.S. telecom executive.
>U.S. wireless service costs $41 per month per customer on average, according to the data and analytics firm—second only to Canada, which also largely discourages Huawei equipment. In the U.K., where Huawei is allowed but closely scrutinized, the average wireless bill is $23 a month.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-long-seen-as-spy-threat-...
The weighted votes method seems like it would have a more negative effect on liquidity and would disproportionately reward large institutional investors that can afford to stick around regardless of the financial outlook of the company, just to hedge their bets.
Another problem I see is that weighted voting would make older shares more valuable. By purchasing old shares you reduce the number of votes it would take to do anything. This is sort of similar to having a continuous rather than discreet set of share classes. What's interesting about this is that the vast majority of non-institutional investors never vote on anything. This means that, depending on the weighting function, individuals would actually be incentivized to sell their old stock and buy young stock. This would result in consolidation of more voting power in the hands of institutional investors and founders.
The biggest benefit I see of the weighted voting method against other alternatives is a bitcoin-like FOMO buy-in in the beginning.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/200906...
As an example, take Wisconsin - it was a blue state for 8 cycles before swinging to Trump in 2016. Democratic turnout was paltry, in great part because Democrats assumed that Hillary would win without them.