Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skipper who wrote (24184)	8/10/1998 7:44:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

I see one bit of trouble with this approach. Right now a job is worth no more and no less than the paycheck it brings. Of course, this isn't a perfect correlation, but the gist is that a job has a value mainly determined by the market. Measurable valuation, verified every pay period. If you attach an extraordinary value to employment status (like making it a requirement to vote) I imagine that jobs won't be purely market regulated anymore. A "commodity" valuation would be attached to employment status - skewing hiring practices? It would be like a strong union came in and called the ground rules. Imho. And in this case - the union and the gov't are the same. In the long term, I'd confidently declare this policy as severely anticompetitive. Btw Terrence: Property need not be restrictively defined as real estate. Anything of market value, like a car, a big bag of heroin, ...a physical skill... should be admitted as property. I'm all for letting the successful hookers vote.