vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here.
It does have to do with supply and demand in a sense.  My salary, as an engineer, has relatively little to do with the supply and demand of the parts my employers company makes.  My salary does, however, depend (in part) on the supply of fellow engineers that have comparable skill sets to mine and the demand that companies have for engineers with comparable skill sets to mine.
Here's another thing to consider: do you go to a top school? If not, do you have top grades and the desire to send thousands of cold networking emails to strangers? If not (and, in this economy, even if you do fulfill those criteria), it will be difficult to break into fields like investment banking and sales and trading, which are typically the most desired destinations in finance after college.   Those jobs can lead to a very financially remunerative career in that you can leave after 2 years and work at hedge funds and private equity firms. However, very few people can get to that point. If you're good at CS, you could actually make a lot more money going that route. Or you could also do a programming job for a financial institution like someone in the comments was talking about, which would likely pay well.
I find that hard to believe because when compared to the other engineering professions, software is already extremely highly paid. The problem is that the tech industry has continued to grow massively since 2001, and yet the number of computer science enrolments has dropped precipitously since that time. According to the [computing research association](http://cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CRA_Taulbee_2011-2012_Results.pdf), the number of CS graduates fell by more than half between 2001 and 2009.  Furthermore, the [jobless rate](http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2012/01/software-developers-44-percent-jobless.html) for software developers is at 4.4%, 3.6% for web developers, and 3.6% for computer programmers. These are well below the national averages.  So when companies like Microsoft complain that they're finding a shortage of engineers, I'm inclined to believe them - the statistics seem to back it up. So for the past decade software engineers have experienced high demand, low supply, and consistently high pay. This leads me to believe that further increasing pay isn't going to help the situation. What we need is more investment in STEM education, which is precisely what this $10k per visa fee is supposed to go towards. It seems like a pretty good idea to me.
The are a couple of explanations that I can think of; though for determining exactly what is different you will want to print out both returns and compare them line by line to see how they differ. If the company grossed up your income to account for the taxes on housing (possibly by paying the additional withholding), you may be just benefiting from them estimating your tax rate. This can especially be the case if your only work was the three month internship. They would have to assume your salary was for the entire year. There is an earned income tax credit for low wage earners that you may have qualified for (it would depend your specific circumstances if you meet the criteria). But that credit for a range of income actually pays out more the more you earn (to encourage working that extra hour instead of reducing benefit because you had another hour of employment). As for the housing subsidy itself, while the value is quite high the IRS considers that to be a taxable benefit that the employer provided you and so it needs to be added to your W-2 wages. $8k a month seems quite high, but I don't know the quality of the apartment you were provided and what the going rates are in the area. Given that you said you worked for a major tech company, I can imagine that you might have been working in an area with high rents. If the employer did gross up your paycheck so as to cover your taxes, that $24k would also include that extra tax payment (e.g. if the employer paid $8k in additional taxes for you, then the housing cost that they directly paid were $16k).
"It is.  If the salaries were higher more bright college students would consider it a no-brainer to pursue computer programming degrees, in the same way that they do finance degrees.  Top talent should start in the mid sixes and high end talent should be making tens of millions a year.  Their businesses share more in common with financial firms than manufacturing.  But the pay hasn't caught up because salaries are artificially deflated by selective immigration.  I'm all in favor of loosening immigration restrictions, but not when it's targeted to prop up the bottom line of one, already very profitable, economic sector.  It's considered a win-win for politicians because it ""creates"" jobs, but all it really does is distort markets and make things our economy less efficient."
Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla.
This is the correct advice.  If you aren't part of their recruiting network, AKA alum of a school they go to, you're odds are going to be very low.  The only other path would be if you are basically top 5% of your profession skill wise.  Normally this would mean an advanced degree, lots of work experience, etc.  If you don't have an MBA with a finance focus, it seems unlikely to me that they would hire you for any finance related consulting.  But computer engineering consulting seems reasonable.  Based on the brief info you have given, I would say you need to figure out what they want, and then take the steps to accumulate those skills.
"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company.  My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract.  I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company.  Made about $300,000 pre tax.  This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us ""rich"" that year, but have never made that amount since!)"
&gt;  Besides there are only so many marketable majors (basically STEM) and finance isn't really one of them unless you go to a target school  Sorry but this just isn't true. I work at one of the big banks and my analyst class has people from all types of colleges all around the country.
"I'll take a stab at it. If you're not passionate about big ideas, about markets and companies and economies, if you can't read up on finance, companies, economies and markets for hours a day, for most of your free time for the next few years, if you're really just attracted by the ""money"" and notoriety, you should stick to engineering.   There's space for non-financial majors in finance anyway... Focus elsewhere for a while, and if finance still appeals to you in five years, consider it then.   (I have a non-financial background. I realized I liked it when I realized every time I had one question answered, five more came up, and this happened over and over... And still does, after four years. I could still leave finance, however... You never know where your path will take you.)"
"Congratulations on the job offer!  That type of matching sounds good if you plan to stay at a company for more than a year. My experience has been that 401k matching can range from 2% up to 8% for your typical starting job, so a total of 6% is good. You would definitely want to contribute at least 5% to take advantage of the ""Free"" money. Loan provision could mean that loans from 401k are allowed. I did some research and found that not all company 401ks allow for you to take a loan out of your 401k. Typically this is bad practice since you are robbing your 401k of it's major advantage - tax free compound interest.  Source"
You could get a prestigious job in computer engineering, do really well for a year or two, try to get a job in consulting, then go MBA at a prestigious university and get recruited from there.    What factors are making you consider consulting? And why finance specifically?
Finance...there aren't really entry level jobs in economics. Of course people get jobs as econ majors but real economists only get hired at the senior (phd) level to implement a strategy that they studied in academia. Finance gives you a better understanding of financial statements and operations.   Kansas may lack financial career opportunities and on campus recruiting.
I live in a relatively low cost-of-living area.  I started at $50k, would be close to $70k now if I had kept that job.  I make $45k currently, however I just started in a big corporation and advancement should come pretty soon.  It's enough to pay bills and live comfortably now though.  I should mention I'm single and I don't have kids, so that helps.
"Generally speaking I find that jumping jobs either in-company or outside it is sometimes required for even advancing in title.   When I was working at a F500 in the Portland Metro Area, people jumped around a lot. I'd say between a 1 1/2 years and 2 years was the average time someone stayed in a position before either moving around, moving out to another company, or maybe finally moving up.   Lets say you were a Financial Analyst and you wanted to be a Senior Financial Analyst. Generally speaking you would need 4-5 years  in to get there organically within the same org, if ever.   The reality is for every single one of those Senior Financial Analyst positions there is probably 100-200 applicants including inside and outside applicants. While being an employee there was definitely a good thing, it doesn't guarantee you jack or shit. You might have worked at for 3 years, but some guy coming from Silicon Valley who is moving up North to Oregon so he can afford a house is probably going to beat you in the interview process.   So that's when the other options come in. You can move around and get a new position, a new title, and the new experiences and connections that come with it. Or, you jump ship to a Senior Financial Analyst position somewhere else. The fact of the matter is applying for jobs is a giant crap shoot if you work in something that is unrelated to engineering, product creation, etc where your work can speak for you. If you have the word ""Analyst"" or ""Associate"" in your title, then career branding means more than anything else. Which job hopping gets you.  Companies already expect you to leave for better opportunities. All the reasons to be loyal are dead if you aren't waiting for stock options to vest. There are no more pensions, raises are minimal if you get them at all, and if you become a burden on the Wage Expense line of the P&amp;L they will drop you without a second thought and *maybe* a severance.  Get yours and remember that a job is a job and that no matter how much they tell you otherwise, you are replaceable and when your employer looks at you they don't see value, they see a business expense."
Nah, you're thinking top 0.1% - they are very different than the top 1%.  Top 1% tends to be salaried professionals who work hard every day - doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.  Top 0.1% makes their $$ off interest, dividends, etc., and these people own more wealth than the bottom 90%.  I'm on vacation, so all you're gonna get is a google link, but here's lots of sources of info on it: https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=top+1%25+vs+top+0.1%25&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;hl=en-us&amp;client=safari&amp;gfe_rd=cr&amp;ei=daSDWb7dEZL08Aeg55bQDw
I think the key here is 'at any age'. Yes it's not surprising that for demographics who have been in the workforce for a while, $100k won't get you near the top (i.e. Ages 30+).   However, what can be surprising is that even at age 25, $100k isn't enough to get you in the top 1%. So what more of the masses that don't earn anywhere near that number?
Hmm, others are hating on the article, but from my experience, there is truth there. Every single tiny company that's trying to hire you as a young coder will dangle the possibility of a massive upside later on - the founder/CEO believes that success is just around the corner, and a good one has the ability to charm everyone else into believing it, too. Alas, this is not a guarantee of success.  So I think if you're in that position - young coder trying to pick a job, or decide whether to stick with one - the advice is this: if you're not sure whether you know what you're doing, you probably don't, in which case look at the base odds (1 in 100 startups succeed, the rest crater) and act accordingly. If you *are* sure you know what you're doing, then more power to you.
Find people who work in the industry to let you sit in on their daily activities with their jobs.  Find out what you like and what you don't like.  The idea of working in finance is often times better than what it turns out to be.  Before you put all your eggs in one basket, make sure you see what it's really like.  The world of finance is very broad. Often times, the only job opportunities available to recent college graduates is within the insurance sector. If you know EXACTLY what you want to do and start networking now, the chances that you will find an opportunity doing what you want to do will grow exponentially.
Recent grads from Berkeley's program are reporting 100-150k/yr.  If you look at job postings you'll find offers up to 300k/yr and in a few rare instances I've seen 500k+.  The key though for those really high paying jobs is that you must have a PhD and must be an expert programmer. Look at it more like they're giving you the capital to build an HFT system that makes the money - you're practically a business partner.
No, but it's not crazy out of reach of the salaries you listed, either.  Heck, you even made a provision for $250k.  And it's certainly over the $100k threshold.  But sure, if all you are is a worker bee you're not going to make that.  As long as you're quoting developer salaries, you're not going to make that.  The question is where you go after being a developer, if you ever move past that.  And yeah, there's a big difference in the number of people that make 100 vs 300.
We are mostly .NET C#. I'm not trying to sound like a big shot but generally, to work in finance as a software engineer, you have to be good at what you do. More specifically, I work on developing the inside tools for our traders and mutual/hedge fund managers to manage the business. I work on benchmark, asset, and valuation analysis tools. Technologies I use on a daily basis are C#, SQL, JavaScript, JQuery, MVVM (and other design patterns), HTML5, and more specialized unit testing tools. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask or pm.
Better off making sure what ever degree you pursue has real life applications commensurate with what ever income level you hope to achieve.  Most of the tech giants got really lucky being young and innovative when tech really took off at the consumer level in the early 90's.  That ship has sailed for most of the lucky billionaires because now everyone with brain and commitment can write code if they want to. It's not nearly as valuable.  I'm not saying you can't get rich as a dropout if you're really lucky, but I can play those same odds with a lotto ticket.
The worst thing I've been seeing is interviewing for a position, requiring a ton of experience with specialized technologies, waiting almost a month of back and forth interviews and screenings and finding out that the position is below entry level pay. Oh, this job requires 7+ years experience and pays $50k-$55k? GTFO. That might be an OK salary in Frogballs, AR, but in my area, that's entry level helpdesk pay. So you have a foozeball table and offer free snacks, that doesn't pay the bills.
I think in the uk to break into finance you only really need:  - To have gone to a target (UCL/ICL/LSE/Oxford/Cambridge)  - Have some relevant work experience. (Internships are pretty easy to get)  If those two can't get your foot in the door then and only then should you look for additional qualifications (imo)  I'm also trying to get into the industry and literally all of my friends who scored FO positions have literally just done that + been in a few societies.
it is not a creative career. you don't make anything, you serve your purpose in the economy ofcourse, and it is interesting to be surrounded and in the middle of business like this...but at the end of the day, you sell a service that anyone else can do, and your clients, the businesses, are the actual smart ones. they are the ones that make something and make real decisions. in finance you just trade, or research, or sell your investment banking services...its pretty bs, you leach of what actual creative people are doing. unless you are at a buy side shop, and high up, but then you would be incredibly intelligent and lucky.   that all being said, i have no regrets choosing finance, it is still a great career, and any job gets boring after a bit. i wish i worked in a different area of finance yes, but every area you need to start as someones bitch for a few years, and I'm not sure if I can do that again. More math education always helps in finance
I've interviewed people with CFAs for IT roles, but they still didn't know finance for crap. Freddie encouraged grads there to get a CFE and I knew a few on the IT side that did. But once you have real work experience, there isn't much point.
Thanks for the feedback. What area of finance are you currently in?  I've heard that RMI jobs are in demand right now as well, and I feel like that coupled with a background in computer science could really help.
Yes, it's probably one of the best combinations for the current/future job market. A lot of the finance industry will (eventually) become more technological with areas like algorithmic trading and artificial intelligence, and CS is a good way to position yourself for this. Only if you're interested in it though, otherwise it's kind of pointless.
"TLDR: You will probably need to move to a different employer to get the raise you want/need/deserve. Some employers, in the US, punish longevity through a number of practices. My wife worked as a nurse for about 20 years. During that time she had many employers, leveraging raises with job changes. She quit nursing about 6 years ago and was being paid $38/hour at the time. She had a friend that worked in the same system for 18 years. They had the same position in the same hospital that friend's current rate of pay: $26/hour. You probably don't want to be that person. Given your Stack Overflow participation, I would assume you are some type of web developer. I would recommend updating your resume, and moving for a 20% increase or more. You'll get it as it is a great time to be a web developer. Spending on IT tends to go in cycles, and right now budgets are very healthy for hiring new talent. While your current company might not have enough money in the budget to give you a raise, they would not hesitate hiring someone with your skills at 95K if they had an opening. Its common, but frustrating to all that are involved except the bean counters that looks at people like us as commodities. Think about this: both sides of the table agree that you deserve a 5K raise. But lets say next year only 3k is in the budget. So you are out the 5k you should have been given this year, plus the 2k that you won't get, plus whatever raise was fair for you next year. That is a lot of money! Time to go! Don't bother on holding onto any illusions of a counter offer by your current employer. There will be too much resentment. Shake the dust off your feet and move on. Edit: Some naysayers will cite short work histories as problems for future employment. It could happen in a small number of shops, but short work histories are common in technology that recruiters rarely bat an eye. If they do, as with any objection, it is up to you to sell yourself.
Oh, well $100k AUD is a little on the high side but still fairly typical for an entry level EE.  EDIT: Turns out it's almost exactly what my starting salary was as an entry level ee back in 2001 after adjusting for inflation.
Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, ""We just don't have the budget to give you a raise"", the key question is, ""Is that true?"" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for ""we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year"". Or it might be a euphemism for ""you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up"". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that."