You can still revert to market rate if your tenant leaves. As a landlord who values consistent occupancy over maximizing profit, I am fine with this. And I agree with above comment, if you are raising rent 7% every year then you or your prop manager lowballed your rent, that’s not the fault of rent control.
People seem to be confusing free speech (expression without interference by government) with the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. The pushback from the executive chairman is no less a form of free expression than the writings of the author. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of increasingly large corporations, but this article undermines the argument against massive corporations by presenting a motive that is easily dismissed.
Take into account that at one time these people could pay their rent and now, because of gentrification, they can't. A person too poor to afford a home and has been renting the same place for decades is getting evicted because the wealthy moved in next door.
The most important salary negotiation tip:
DON'T TELL THEM HOW MUCH YOU ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID OR GIVE THEM A RANGE.
Recruiters always ask this up front and INSIST that they must know. I have NEVER been denied the opportunity to interview for refusing to give a number upfront.
If you're applying at a company, it means you've done at least a little research on what they should be expected to pay and you see somewhere around that range as acceptable. You don't have to tell them that you've researched their rates and find them acceptable, because that too would be like giving them a range, instead the research is simply to avoid wasting your time. You wouldn't want to interview for a job that pays the position with compensation worth at most $60k when you're already making at least $100k.
This way, you have an advantage: you know roughly how much they pay but they have almost no idea how much (i.e. how little) you will accept as compensation. Best case scenario, they offer you MORE than what your research said they would, and you negotiate a little more on top of it and accept, assuming you actually like the job. Even if they say no to your counter offer, you're still ahead. Worst case scenario, they offer you less, they say no to your counter offers, and you have to decline. Either your research was wrong or they were lowballing you, either way you've got multiple other interviews in process (right?) so move on. If you find your research is repeatedly off the mark, find better sources.
No matter what, don't give them a number. Make them give you a number first and negotiate from there.
Curious to see some of the roots of GoFundMe? Check out Fanbox, previously known as the startup SMS.ac. That's where the founders of GFM worked before they moved on to their current, highly successful venture. I imagine that's where the startup bug bit them and they learned the value of being the middleman for transactions while leveraging social networks. SMS.ac was a middleman for SMS billing and a social network, generating text messages that were sent to users and receiving a share of the text charge from the cellular carriers. I worked with them there, crazy but good times.
A bit like Teralta Park over I-15 in City Heights, San Diego. CalTrans was supposed to have 3 - 4 covers over the freeway, with parks, shopping and housing over it, but only one cover was completed.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/08/i-15-in-city-heights-ho...
Per the courts, the FCC does not have the authority to create a new classification, only Congress can do that. The FCC must apply one of the classifications to ISPs and regulate them according to that classification per the 1996 act. The FCC currently classifies ISPs as information services, and information services can discriminate because they offer a service that requires a greater level of control in order to function.
If depressing compensation isn't a goal of tech companies, than why the collusion between many of the large tech companies via their anti-poaching agreements? Compensate them with the benefits, environment and challenges that will keep them, instead of colluding to prevent their mobility through a free market.
Also, if "natural born, exceptional" programmers are so rare, would you not have to invite 999 "competent" programmers, of which we supposedly need no more of, in order to get that 1 "exceptional" programmer which Graham claims we desperately need? So to get thousands of exceptional programmers, how many competent programmers would have to be invited into the workforce as well?
As the people in question believe that the solution is to train more Americans to be programmers, there are a variety of terms that could be thought of: "pro-trainers," "pro-local labor," etc. Instead, the focus is on what their solution isn't.
I don't disagree with the Matthew Gertner article. As the differences between working with remote co-workers and local co-workers diminish, working remotely will become the preferred method, regardless of what our immigration policies are. Americans themselves will benefit, as they move to countries with lower costs of living. This is already happening with teams which do not require in-person interactions, but I think we are still a decade or two away from technology reaching a point where remote work can completely replicate the in-person experience and thus become the widespread and defacto standard.