You could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.
I would count coordination here as a deep technical skill, which requires a depth of study and/or experience. You are selling your coordination skills.
Requiring "means testing", i.e. excluding people who are not in need, is often shown to cost more money than it saves.
(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)
If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.
> The market price for a referral is negative. Businesses would normally pay to seek them out.
By threatening to withdraw from a national market, Google seem to be saying that its business model depends on getting its own users by this mechanism.
As such, it's reasonable to believe that the true market price won't remain negative.
I think the video evidence people wish to collect is exactly the evidence that you are wrong - that people get arrested (or perhaps brutalized, or killed) despite being wholly respectful.
I would wager that "Reject All" does not, in fact, opt you out of "Legitimate Interests" - sites are using the language "Object to Legitimate Interests" for this.
Being overweight/obese might be (and might not be) a side-effect of the things you list, but it also that causes its own further side-effects and is worth dealing with in its own right.
I am not clever enough to understand this analogy, at all.
Why would Google be opening a coffee shop? Could you please translate this analogy into the factual situation, so that I can understand your point of view?
Most people are unlikely to reach top 1% for income in any one year of their lifetime.
The top 1% for wealth is even a much higher bar to reach: you need to hold over $10 million. People ain't moving in and out of that bracket very often.
London financial industry traders and London voting residents are not related.
Greater London residents voted overall ~60% to Remain, but you'd expect that traders live in the Eastern boroughs, and outside London, in Essex (both up to ~70% Leave).
Primarily, the employer benefits - which is particularly evident in this case.
They can ask the applicant to do the work to prove themselves, with the pretence of an available job, and don't even have to consider the result of that work.
This scenario lays bare that the employer has all the power in the situation.
I say "They asked OP to do a bunch of wasted work on the off-chance that their prize candidate was not available - even though they were not (under no circumstances) interested in considering the OP against the prize candidate"
There's a simple and known solution to not have to do this - which is to conduct fleets of interviews at the same time, so that you can fairly and accurately compare the candidates.