User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

By Taylor Kovar (KovarCapital.com)

  Hey Taylor - I’ve just started doing freelance work because I feel like this is the best way to boost my earning potential and take control of my career. Problem is, I have no idea what to charge clients for my design and copywriting services. Is there a standard for this? - Katie

Hey Katie - Good for you! The first step is usually the hardest, so I feel like you’re on your way to success already. As for what to charge, there are all sorts of different standards, and you need to figure out what works for you. Some things to think about:

What makes sense for you? I know, I know, I’m responding to your question with virtually the exact same question. The thing is, you don’t just get to start at the same level as everyone else. Like with any job, you climb the ladder and earn your raises. However, you need to make sure you’re not underselling yourself right out of the gate. In your haste to get clients, you might find yourself overworked and underpaid, and that’s a very common occurrence. You need to establish a price that isn’t wildly different from what other freelancers are charging, but still feels comfortable to you and helps you get a few clients.

Keep long-term goals. If you get too caught up trying to get lots of clients who don’t pay much, you’ll find yourself hating the work, not making enough money, and constantly behind on deadlines. If you’re just diving into freelance, it’s best to take your time and give each project the attention it deserves as you find your rhythm. Financially, taking your time doesn’t make a lot of sense, as more work means more money in your pocket. However, if you stay focused on the business you’re building, it will help you stay patient and produce good content. After all, you don’t just want to get by as a freelancer, you want to thrive and avoid going back to a job you don’t love. So, while you establish rates in the early going, remember the better your work is, the more you can make in the future.

Calculate the cost of your needs. You’re going to have a lot of expenses that standard employees don’t have to deal with. From supplies to certification programs and tax payments, a lot of the invoices you collect won’t go directly into your bank account. That means you’ll have to crunch some numbers before setting your rates to ensure you’re getting enough to survive. After you get an idea of what most people are charging, make sure you know what rate will actually be realistic for you.

What you charge will evolve over time, and it may vary between your clients. As long as you value yourself and the work you do, I’m sure you’ll settle on a price that makes sense. Good luck, Katie!

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by John Stossel

       Socialists like Bernie Sanders tell us that "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."
        That's a lie.
        Yes, rich people got absurdly rich. Last year, says Oxfam, "the wealth of the world's billionaires increased (by) $2.5 billion a day."
        I say, so what?
        The poor did not get poorer. Bernie's wrong about that. The poor are (SET ITAL)much(END ITAL) better off.
        "As we've increased the number of billionaires around the world, extreme poverty has shrunk," says former investment banker Carol Roth in my video about inequality.
        She is right. Over the past 30 years, more than a billion people climbed out of extreme poverty. Thanks to capitalism, more than a billion people no longer struggle to survive on a few pennies a day.
        Bernie is correct when he says that the wealth gap between rich and poor grew. In America over the last 40 years, the richest people got 200 percent richer, while poor Americans got just 32 percent richer. But again, so what?
        Gaining 32 percent is a very good thing (all these numbers are adjusted for inflation).
        Everyone's better off, despite the improvement not being even. It never is.
        Now the myth:
        The media claim in America there's "a lack of income mobility" -- that people born poor are likely to stay poor.
        Some do. It's true that people with rich parents have a big advantage. But it's a myth that Americans are locked into their economic class.
        Economists at Harvard and Berkeley crunched the numbers and found most people born to the richest fifth of Americans fell out of that bracket within 20 years.
        Likewise, most born to the poorest fifth climb to a higher quintile. Some make it all the way to the top.
        In fact, says Roth, "3 out of 4 Americans will hit that top 20 percent at some point in their lifetime."
        You see America's income mobility on the Forbes richest list. Most of the billionaires are self-made. They didn't inherit money. They created their wealth.
        Still, the very rich are ridiculously rich. The Forbes billionaires have more money than the bottom 64 percent of the U.S. population.
        "Unfair!" say the progressives. "It doesn't matter if nearly everyone got richer, income inequality itself is a huge problem."
        It's "threatening to tear us apart!" says New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio.
        It might, if people come to believe that inequality itself is evil. But one question: Why is that true?
        Progressives like to point out that in Scandinavian countries, people say they are happier than Americans. Scandinavians have more equal incomes than Americans.
        But that proves nothing. Incomes are more equal in Afghanistan, too. Incomes are more equal when everyone is poor.
        Forget money for a moment and think about how impossible it would be to make everyone equal.
        I'll never sing as well as Adele or play basketball like LeBron. The best athletes, singers, dancers, etc., are just physically different. I'll never be as self-confident as Donald Trump or as verbally smooth as AOC.
        "There's inequality in everything. There's inequality in free time, inequality in parents. I don't have any parents or grandparents," says Roth. "I have two kidneys. There are people out there who need one, don't have one that functions. Should the government take my kidney because somebody else needs it?"
        I suggest to her that some people having so much more than others is just inherently unfair.
        "Life is unfair!" she replied. "Unfair is good. Unfair is a feature. It's not a bug!"
        Certainly, it's wrong if government makes rules that (SET ITAL)create(END ITAL) inequality.
        Racist laws forbidding some ethnic groups to do business where they please, or restricting where they live, are evil.
        So are government subsidies to rich people and well-connected corporations.
        But allowing people to be different from one another, to employ their unique talents and succeed or fail by them, to rise as high as the market will bear -- that's an important part of freedom.
        We won't all end up in the same place, but most of us will be more prosperous than if government decided our limits.
        And we will be freer.
        John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

        My longtime friend and colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell has just published a revised and enlarged edition of "Discrimination and Disparities." It lays waste to myth after myth about the causes of human differences not only in the United States but around the globe. Throughout the book, Sowell shows that socioeconomic outcomes differ vastly among individuals, groups and nations in ways that cannot be easily explained by any one factor, whether it's genetics, sex or race discrimination or a history of gross mistreatment that includes expulsion and genocide.
        In his book "The Philadelphia Negro" (1899), W.E.B. Du Bois posed the question as to what would happen if white people lost their prejudices overnight. He said that it would make little difference to most blacks. He said: "Some few would be promoted, some few would get new places -- the mass would remain as they are" until the younger generation began to "try harder" and the race "lost the omnipresent excuse for failure: prejudice."
        Sowell points out that if historical injustices and persecution were useful explanations of group disadvantage, Jews would be some of the poorest and least-educated people in the world today. Few groups have been victimized down through history as have the Jews. Despite being historical targets of hostility and lethal violence, no one can argue that as a result Jews are the most disadvantaged people.
        Jews are not alone in persecution either. The number of overseas Chinese slaughtered by Vietnamese mobs and the number of Armenians slaughtered by mobs in the Ottoman Empire in just one year exceeds the number of black Americans lynched in the history of the U.S. From 1882-1968, 4,743 total lynchings occurred in the United States, of which 3,446 of the victims were black. Sowell concludes this section suggesting that it is dangerous for society to depict outcome differences as evidence or proof of malevolent actions that need to be counterattacked or avenged. Politicians and others who are now calling for reparations to blacks for slavery should take note of Sowell's argument.
        There's considerable handwringing among educational "experts" about the black/white academic achievement gap. Part of the persistence of that gap can be laid at the feet of educators who replaced what worked with what sounded good. One notable example of success is the achievement of students at the all-black Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C., from 1870 to 1955. During that period, Dunbar students frequently outscored white students on achievement tests in the Washington, D.C., area. Sowell, who studied Dunbar and other high-achieving black schools, says, Dunbar "had unsparing standards for both school work and for such behavioral qualities a punctuality and social demeanor. Dunbar's homework requirements were more than most other public schools. Some Dunbar parents complained to the D.C. Board of Education about the large amount of homework required."
        Dunbar High School was not the only black school with a record of success that would be the envy of today's public schools. Schools such as Frederick Douglass (Baltimore), Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), PS 91 (Brooklyn), McDonogh 35 (New Orleans) and others operated at a similar level of excellence. By the way, these excelling students weren't solely members of the black elite; most had parents who were manual laborers, domestic servants, porters and maintenance men.
        Observing the historical success of these and other black schools, one wonders about the catchwords of Chief Justice Earl Warren's statement that separate schools "are inherently unequal." That vision led to racial integration going from being a means to an end to racial integration becoming an end all by itself. Sowell doesn't say this, but in my view, integration becoming the goal is what has made diversity and inclusion the end all and be all of today's educators at many levels.
        Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Discrimination and Disparities" is loaded with pearls of wisdom from which we can all benefit, and as such, this will not be my final discussion of his masterpiece.
        Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by John Stossel

    The Green New Deal's goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.
    "That's a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced," James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.
    "Renewable is so inconsistent," he adds. "You can't just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers."
    Because wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, "renewable" energy requires many more transmission lines, and bigger batteries.
    Unfortunately, says Meigs: "You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous."
    "Batteries are a lousy way to store energy," adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green.
    "You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack," he explains. "Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we're consuming energy to 'save' energy -- not a good path to go."
    Still, wind turbines and solar batteries are 10 times more efficient than when they were first introduced! That's not good enough, writes Mills, to make "the new energy economy" anything more than "magical thinking."
    "They hit physics limits. In comic books, Tony Stark has a magic power source, but physics makes it impossible to make solar 10 times better again."
    The dream of "green" causes us to misdirect resources. Even after billions in government subsidies, solar still makes up less than 1 percent of America's energy -- wind just 2 percent. And even that energy isn't really "clean."
    "We use billions of tons of hydrocarbons to make the windmills that are already in the world, and we've only just begun to make them at the level people claim they would like them to be built," says Mills. "Pursue a path of wind, solar and batteries, we increase how much we dig up and move by a thousand-fold."
    "You gotta clear-cut the forest. These machines kill a lot of birds," says Meigs. "I agree that we should bring down our carbon emissions ... but we should also make sure we're spending money on stuff that really works."
    There is one energy source, though, that efficiently produces lots of power with no carbon emissions: nuclear.
    But people fear it. They point to the Chernobyl plant accident in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.
    "The Chernobyl plant design was idiotically bad," says Meigs. They don't make nuclear plants like that anymore.
    What about Fukushima?
    "Fukushima helps prove how safe nuclear power really is. No one was killed."
    I pointed out that people were killed during the evacuation.
    Fear of radiation killed people," responded Meigs. They evacuated older people who didn't need to go.
    People fear what they don't understand and what they can't see.
    "A dam breaks, and hundreds of thousands of people die. Nuclear plants, their safety, ironically, is actually evident in their accidents!" says Mills.
    "More people have fallen off of roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S.," adds Meigs.
    Yet after Fukushima, Germany shut down its nuclear plants. That led to higher electricity prices and increased carbon emissions because Germany burned coal to make up for the loss of nuclear power.
    Likewise, "in Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont, they shut down their nuclear plant. Guess what happened? Carbon emissions went up," recounts Meigs. "This supposedly green state, ultra-liberal Vermont, went backwards."
    If a Green New Deal is ever implemented, says Mills, it would rob the poor by raising energy costs, while "giving money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy $100,000 cars, to put expensive solar arrays on their roofs or to be investors in wind farms."
    "It's upside-down Robin Hood," he adds. "That's a bad deal."
    Yet a majority of Americans -- including Republicans surveyed -- say they support some version of it.
    John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
        






User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
by Walter E. Williams

    George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School hired Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to co-teach a course this summer called Creation of the Constitution. The course will be held 3,668 miles away, in Runnymede, England, where the Magna Carta was sealed 800 years ago. Some George Mason University students and faculty have become triggered. One student told George Mason's Board of Visitors, "It has affected my mental health knowing that an abuser will be part of our faculty." Another said, "The hiring of Kavanaugh threatens the mental well-being of all survivors on this campus." The Washington Post reports that a petition to fire Kavanaugh has gathered almost 3,500 signatures and has the endorsement of George Mason Democrats. GMU students have created separate forms for parents and alumni to pledge that they will not donate to the university so long as Kavanaugh is teaching.
    Part of student demonstrations included defacing a statue of the university's namesake George Mason by putting blue tape on his mouth and attaching anti-Kavanaugh signs. The university's spokesman Michael Sandler gave The College Fix a mealy-mouthed excuse saying, "We allow students to dress up the statue, so this doesn't violate any policies that I'm aware of." He said the university "strongly supports freedom of expression and this would seem to fall into that category." His vision suggests that freedom of expression includes defacing university property.
    Youngsters with little understanding might be forgiven for their protest of a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice sharing his wisdom with law students. But faculty members cannot be excused. Professor Bethany Letiecq, the head of the George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors, endorsed a call by UnKoch My Campus, another leftist group, for a congressional investigation of GMU's law school's hiring of Justice Kavanaugh as an adjunct faculty member. Fortunately for civility, Dr. Angel Cabrera, the university's president, said that there were no legitimate grounds for an investigation by the university. He threw a bit of pablum to the protesters by saying: "I respect the views of people who disagreed with Justice Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation due to questions raised about his sexual conduct in high school. But he was confirmed and is now a sitting Justice." Considering that a college president is also a politician, that statement demonstrates !
good judgment. According to The College Fix, after listening to the student protestors speak during the board meeting, Cabrera and Board of Visitors rector Tom Davis said they were proud of the students and appreciated that they spoke up and acted as engaged citizens. That's nonsense.
    I receive many questions from people around the nation who are surprised by the happenings at GMU. As I have advised on numerous occasions, George Mason University erroneously earns a reputation as a conservative/libertarian university because of its most distinguished and internationally known liberty-oriented economics department, which can boast of two homegrown Nobel laureates in economics. Its Antonin Scalia Law School has a distinguished faculty that believes in personal liberty and reveres the U.S. Constitution -- unlike many other law schools that hold liberty and our Constitution in contempt. The rest of the university is just like most other universities - liberal, Democratic Party-dominated. The chief difference between my GMU colleagues and liberals at some other universities is that they are polite, respectful and congenial, unlike what one might find at places like U.C. Berkeley or University of Massachusetts.
    GMU students and faculty may also be disturbed about what Justice Kavanaugh is going to teach. In the course, Creation of the Constitution, he will explain how much the Magna Carta influenced the founders of our nation. The 1215 Magna Carta limited the power of central government and it forced a reigning monarch to grant his English subjects rights. It contained a list of 63 clauses drawn up to limit King John's power, resulting in making royal authority subject to the law instead of reigning above it. It laid the foundations for limited constitutional governments, an idea offensive to most leftists.
    Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM