Sample Employment Based Proposal: Fill & Download for Free

Based on the arguments advanced on Quora and elsewhere, I see three main sources of this misconception:(1) folk Keynesianism – the notion that employment is generally constrained by insufficient spending, and that raising minimum wages is one way to boost spending;(2) misinterpretation of the results of studies like Card and Krueger’s comparison of changes in employment in certain fast-food chains in New Jersey and Pennsylvania when the former raised its state minimum wage while the latter didn’t. The fact that the New Jersey chains increased employment following the increase in the state minimum wage seems to have been the main source of the claim that as a general matter, raising the minimum wage boosts employment. And finally,(3) confirmation bias and groupthink as multipliers of the first two sources.There is in fact plenty of evidence that raising the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-skilled workers whose wages previously fell below the new minimum, just as economic theory predict. Don Boudreaux recently compiled a useful list of the more recent studies, and more evidence comes in all the time, as more cities and states bow to pressure to raise minimum wages. How do minimum-wage proponents manage to ignore this evidence?One major source of misunderstanding arises from folk Keynesianism, the notion that unemployment results from insufficient consumption, and would be reduced or eliminated if only people would spend more. Raising minimum wages, it is claimed, “puts more money in people’s pockets,” especially those of the working poor, and so boosts spending and employment. Aside from the minimum wage case, the other classic expression of folk Keynesianism is the urban legend that Henry Ford’s decision to raise wages to $5 per day paid for itself through increased demand for Ford motorcars.Folk Keynesianism differs from the academic version by imagining that under-consumption prevails at all times, rather than only in the depths of recessions, and moreover by ignoring the mathematical impossibility of the feedback loop from higher wages of a particular group to greater employment of that particular group.In case of minimum wages, it’s essential to recognize that the set of workers whose wages would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage – roughly those whose current wage exceeds the current minimum wage but falls short of the proposed minimum -- comprise a small share of the labor force (e.g. 10%), concentrated in a narrow range of industries (especially fast food and retail sales), and an even smaller share of total spending (e.g. 4%). Even ignoring dis-employment effects, the additional spending caused by increasing the wage of this group is a tiny fraction of overall spending, of which an even smaller share would be spent on the goods and services produced by firms that employ a lot of minimum wage workers. Imagining that this tiny amount of additional spending is going to increase the revenues of affected firms enough to outweigh their additional costs and cause them to hire more workers is to indulge in magical thinking. The fact that this silly claim persists falls into the third category listed above – groupthink etc.The second major source of the notion that raising the minimum wage boosts employment is the work of David Card and Alan Krueger, who conducted telephone surveys of a sample of fast-food restaurants belonging to particular chains (Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, and Roy Rogers) in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, before and after New Jersey raised its minimum wage in 1992. Their results showed that employment in these chains rose slightly in New Jersey after that state raised its minimum wage, while falling slightly in Pennsylvania, where the minimum wage remained unchanged. This narrow result, along with similar results from others applying a similar methodology, seems to have inspired the broad conclusion that raising the minimum wage has either no effect on employment, or a positive effect.Card and Krueger speculated that this highly counter-intuitive result reflected monopsony power of fast-food restaurants in the market for low-skilled workers, in which case increasing the minimum wage could indeed cause those restaurants to increase employment. However, it turns out that this explanation is wholly inconsistent with another of their findings – that restaurants affected by increased minimum wages passed on those higher costs in the form of higher output prices. In sharp contrast, a monopsonistic employer that increased its employment in response to an increased minimum wage would also increase its output, causing product prices to fall as the supply curve pushed outward along the downward-sloping demand curve. In other words, the monopsony explanation for the measured increased employment is inconsistent with the facts.Card and Krueger’s study has been criticized from many angles, including misinterpretation of the data and poor statistical design. However, the fatal flaw in the Card-Krueger study has been identified by Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, Isaac Sorkin, and Ted To, as ably explained for the layperson by Tim Worstall. The problem lies in the fact that Card and Krueger’s telephone survey only included restaurants in a particular set of national chains, while excluding all of their non-chain competitors – notably “Mom and Pop” sandwich and sub shops and delis. It turns out that the latter rely much more heavily on labor and much less heavily on capital than do the chain restaurants. As a result, increasing the minimum wage raises the costs of the Mom and Pop shops much more than those of the chains, forcing some to go out of business and the rest to raise their output prices much more than the chain restaurants, causing consumers to switch from the Mom and Pop shops to the national chains. In other words, the minimum wage increase provided a competitive advantage to the capital-intensive chain restaurants over their labor-intensive Mom-and-Pop competitors. This shift explains the increase in employment among the chains that Card and Krueger surveyed. But meanwhile, employment in the Mom and Pop shops fell to a much larger extent, resulting in a net reduction in employment. Based on these findings, a key prop to the “minimum wages increase employment” claim disappears.How has the myth that increased minimum wages raise employment survived in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, as well as basic economic theory? One element is certainly confirmation bias – the process whereby people who want to believe something accept evidence (or claimed evidence) that supports their belief without subjecting it to careful scrutiny, while dismissing or ignoring evidence that undermines that belief. This is particularly true in net-centric communities, where people can easily find Paul Krugman’s endorsement of Card and Krueger’s conclusions, but would have to look much harder to find Krugman’s previous endorsement of the standard economic conclusion that minimum wages reduce the employment of low-skilled workers.Similarly, there’s a lot of groupthink out there, so when someone asserts that wage increases in Seattle have boosted employment, many people accept this without asking the relevant question – how did employment growth of low-skilled workers in Seattle compare with employment growth of the same groups just outside Seattle, where the minimum wage remained unchanged? If they did, they would notice that low-skilled employment growth outside Seattle has been much more rapid than in Seattle, a difference that again highlights the employment-reducing impact of minimum wages. This is a good example of the kind of cherry picking that Jordan Cordova mentions. For many people, sharing the same opinions with the rest of one’s Facebook friends is far more important than taking a careful look at the evidence, so once “everybody knows” that minimum wage increases boost employment, few are willing to dissent and risk social stigma for holding “wrong opinions.”

This is why Pay-per-post, pay-per-follower, and directory models DON’T WORK.There is no way of guaranteeing performance in these models. Given the amount of fraud followings and the poor performance associated with one-off (pay-per-posts) I’m amazed that they still exist.I can’t speak for the other operations out there but at Upfluence, we avoid this problem by employing two system influence ranking to define influence. This system dynamically produces results based on the search query and not arbitrary numbers like followers.Screenshot of a search in Upfluence. Results based on queries.Though, if someone wanted to search by followers, they could with peace of mind: influencers aren’t recruited to be in our database, they’re filtered in or out based on the data. And the data doesn’t lie.When you run a search, each influencer result comes with full analytics for every platform, their performance history, audience data, publication examples, and fake follower detection. So clients can make their own informed choices.Lastly, we don’t force campaign types.This point is often overlooked but it is crucial because platforms that make users pay per post/follower are forcing a campaign type that may or may not work for the client.At Upfluence, we’ve found that the majority of our clients will opt to do pure sampling campaigns if given the choice and also appreciate the flexibility to choose their own value-proposals. It keeps them from being pigeon-holed like in marketplaces. That’s because Upfluence isn’t a marketplace but a software with integrated search, contact, and campaign tools.Tools are the future of influencer marketing: marketers want to do this stuff in-house, anyways. (Read more here.) Hope another perspective helped answer your question and thank you for the A2A,Vivien

He tapped into an ignored segment of the American voters.It is the Authoritarians who support him. There are people who are looking for simple answers and a leader to tell them what to do. Trump provides both. There is nothing ambiguous about what he says. He doesn't confuse with complex analysis of complex problems. He tells you what he's going to do and it's always simple and straightforward. The problem is not complicated, the enemy is clear. And there's always an enemy.The concept of the Authoritarian Personality came out of a psychiatrist's attempt to understand how a population of civilized people could end up committing the atrocities that Nazi Germany committed. While his analysis had some, to me, weird interpretations that was Freudian Psychotherapeutic theory at the time his basic conclusion has stood the test of time. There are people who, for whatever reason, need strong, authoritarian leaders to tell them what to do. Trump fills that need.If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?You’d be wrong.In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’spreferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respondaggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.Not all authoritarians are Republicans by any means; in national surveys since 1992, many authoritarians have also self-identified as independents and Democrats. And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling,that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality. In my poll results, authoritarianism was not a statistically significant factor in the Democratic primary race, at least not so far, but it does appear to be playing an important role on the Republican side. Indeed, 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale—more than twice as many as Democratic voters.Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support becausethey simply don’t include questions about authoritarianism in their polls. In addition to the typical battery of demographic, horse race, thermometer-scale and policy questions, my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate—Republican orDemocrat—whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.So what does this mean for the election? It doesn’t just help us understand what motivates Trump’s backers—it suggests that his support isn’t capped. In a statistical analysis of the polling results, I found that Trump has already captured 43 percent of Republican primary voters who are strong authoritarians, and 37 percent of Republican authoritarians overall. A majority of Republican authoritarians in my poll also strongly supported Trump’s proposals to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, prohibit Muslims from entering the United States, shutter mosques and establish a nationwide database that track Muslim.

And in a general election, Trump’s strongman rhetoric will surely appeal to some of the 39 percent of independents in my poll who identify as authoritarians and the 17 percent of self-identified Democrats who are strong authoritarians.What’s more, the number of Americans worried about the threat of terrorism is growing. In 2011, Hetherington published research finding that non-authoritarians respond to the perception of threat by behaving more like authoritarians. More fear and more threats—of the kind we’ve seen recently in the San Bernardino and Paris terrorist attacks—mean more voters are susceptible to Trump’s message aboutprotecting Americans. In my survey, 52 percent of those voters expressing the most fear that another terrorist attack will occur in the United States in the next 12 months were non-authoritarians—ripe targets for Trump’s message.Take activated authoritarians from across the partisan spectrum and the growing cadre of threatened non-authoritarians, then add them to the base of Republican general election voters, and the potential electoral path to a Trump presidency becomes clearer.So, those who say a Trump presidency “can’t happen here” should check their conventional wisdom at the door. The candidate has confounded conventional expectations this primary season because those expectations are based on an oversimplified caricature of the electorate in general and his supporters in particular. Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. And the institutions—from the Republican Party to the press—that are supposed to guard against what James Madison called “the infection of violent passions” among the people have either been cowed by Trump’s bluster or are asleep on the job.It is time for those who would appeal to our better angels to take his insurgency seriously and stop dismissing his supporters as a small band of the dispossessed. Trump support is firmly rooted in American authoritarianism and, once awakened, it is a force to be reckoned with. That means it’s also time for political pollsters to take authoritarianism seriously and begin measuring it in their polls.https://francoistremblay.wordpre...