You can win a Noble prize for that line of thinking
The Prize in Economics 1991 - Press Release
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jsfeng/CPEC11.pdf
You can win a Noble prize for that line of thinking
The Prize in Economics 1991 - Press Release
http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~jsfeng/CPEC11.pdf
Original Post Deleted
3C involving frequent or regular contact, in particular unmonitored contact, with children or MIPs (such as, permanently-hired school bus drivers, assistants of children activities, etc).
They should be....
As bus mama's are
Any form of employment where a person is in effect looking after a child for a period of time should require very basic background checks. It is not un-common for the same taxi to be used to shuttle the same kids to school on a daily basis. This gives the potential long contact time between an adult and kids in a captive unmonitored environment.
The checks are not onerous.
Last edited by East_coast; 26-05-2016 at 09:19 AM.
Huh? Your trying to compare a restaurant owner or a grocery store to someone who holds a taxi license?
The grocery store provides a service, as does the restaurant owner. They actually do something. Remind me again what a taxi license owner does? Not all middle men are the same, some provide a service, while others simply make money for doing nothing.
In the case of the taxi license owners, they just get rich while driving down the wages of drivers and increasing the fees for the end users. Remove the middle man, and the guy working in the taxi can earn a better living, the end users can pay less and receive better service.
For a restaurant or grocery store....you can't really remove those middle men. Well, unless you want to drive to the farm and get your food straight from the field
Last edited by Open Casket; 26-05-2016 at 11:33 AM.
As does a taxi license owner or a property owner.The grocery store provides a service, as does the restaurant owner.
The only time people pay money for anything is when it benefits them (economic or emotional ...).
If you're getting paid for ANYTHING, it is because the other person sees value in paying you (typically because that value is more than what they're paying you).
I meant that generically as "asset owner" v/s "asset user".
As far as I know you can lease a restaurant premises with an existing license (you may be limited by that license...).
Bottom line ... there are people who own commodities that others want to rent. You should not abolish one type of renting and keep another.
Licenses, memberships, financial instruments, clothes, watches, patents....
Let everybody who owns a taxi and has the right drivers license get a taxi license. The government could charge a fee for renewal. The price to share the license accross 3 shifts would than be determinded by the cost of leasing the car.
Someone must be feeling a bit sore after paying $7.20M for the licence. Down $1.20M and probably more to come.