vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
what's unrealistic? applying a DCF model to the two possible options?  i didn't claim my description of the situation was comprehensive, didn't ask for input as to whether or not i was considering all possible factors.   why couldn't i use a DCF for a personal choice? any why would i use a RFR if the undertaking requires a risk premium? (or at least doesn't have the same risk level)
"If I was wrong please let me know how so I can learn for next time. This is way off-topic for Money.SE, but I feel compelled to offer my advice. Feel free to downvote and I'll consider deleting (or flag for migration). The mistake you made was not discussing it with your fiancée before turning down the offer.  You are not married yet, but you have made a commitment that should mean that your decisions affect each other for the rest of your lives. She may be more hurt that her opinion wasn't considered in your decision.  That doesn't mean that she makes the decision for you, but it was a perfect opportunity to make a decision together that affects both of you. Where you saw risk and uncertainty, she saw opportunity.  Neither is ""correct"" - only two sides of the same coin.   Hopefully it's an experience that you both can learn and grow from."
I'm not sure this is a safe assumption, necessarily. If the take is sufficient to permanently satiate whatever monetary need motivated the initial crime, risk in the ratio will remain the same but reward will be significantly altered. Having little wealth and gaining a great deal of wealth is different from having a great deal of wealth and getting even more wealth. As the risk/reward ratio would change, the decision-making process would not be the same.
Like most major decisions in life it entirely depends on your goals.  Do you know exactly what you intend to use the degree for? Are you aiming to go work for Ernst &amp; Young? Do you want to be a finance director at some Fortune 500 company? Do you want to start up your own financial advisory or accounting shop?  Going to school for school's sake is pointless after youve gotten your associate's/bachelor's degree. It's an investment. For the investment to be worth it you need to know exactly what youre investing in and why.  So Step 1: come up with a very concrete career plan. What kind of job exactly do you want next and what industry/company do you want it to be in? Then figure out whether you need the extra degree to make that plan possible.
The odds could very well be in your favor, even when the insurance company expects profit. What matters to you is not the expected amount of money you'll have, but the expected amount of utility you'll get from it: getting enough money to buy food to eat is much more important than getting enough money to be able to buy that fiction book too. The more money you have, the less a dollar is worth to you: consequently, if you have enough money, it's worth spending some to prevent yourself from getting into a situation where you don't have enough money.
Comedy answer The McDonalds corporation thinks about $600 or 30% The real answer is: Whatever you can part with and still have money left over for the rest of your budget.  Don't consider your savings, consider your monthly income. This type of question is exactly why you need a budget.  A budget isn't just a tool for getting out of debt, it is a tool to help you understand your money and show you how much to spend on stuff. So based on your costs (utilities, food, shopping, auto expenses, savings, etc) how much is left from your monthly income?  That would be what you can afford in rent. Also, please notice that I still suggest you save money each month. You have a great habit going and to lose it now would be a shame in my opinion.  Maybe while you are planning a budget, you can start to roughly plan for buying a house, or having a new car fund, or having a pile of money for starting a family. (Along with an emergency fund and a fully funded retirement.)   You don't have to save 2/3, but save a dime of every dollar at least. Two dimes is better.  In the future, you will probably find it easier to spend more money rather than less; and you will never get back the chance to save.
Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk.
Make a deal with yourself. You can buy the things that you want, but only after you've read three books on behavioral economics. You should probably start first with Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, which will help you understand why the discount makes you covet the products even more than you would without it. Then find and read two more high-quality books from the same genre.  If you gain self-awareness from this, you will begin to understand why you are conflicted (hint: you really don't want the things you think you do). And you probably won't purchase anything in spite of the fact that you kept the first part of the bargain.
When you say financial planning do you mean like managing clients money? There are a universe of jobs at those firms, but i think of financial planners more like the client facing sales guys. You would need understanding of the markets and to be comfortable with sales and probably some sort of license which those firms will often foot the bill for. Probably not a bad option if you like sales. General organizational skills and presentation skills are important.  Financial analysis is more data focused. You would want to demonstrate an ability to work with data and derive meaningful insights.
Short Answer: Length of Time invested and risk should be correlated. From what I am hearing this is pretty good game plan for your age.   Minutia: Once you get closer to retirement lets say in 20 years.  You might want to treat two lumps of money with different risk.  For me at 49 I have a lump of money for 55-70 that carries a lot less risk then another lump of money for when I hit 80. This way I can wait and take Social Security at 70 when it pays the most per month.  Then I'll have another pile of money for when my care costs start being very expensive.    Or I think most people would benefit from making sure you have the funds you need for the next 5 years in items with extremely low risk and funds you need 6 years out or more you can have some risk tolerance there. Best laid plans though.
When it comes to property investing, there are indeed a couple of important things to consider. Even property professionals must know some significant info in order to ensure that they will get the right property for a certain investor. Thank you for sharing this site. I definitely learned more info regarding property investments.
GuruFocus has an excellent summary of psychological barriers in the markets:  http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=88451
Balanced out might be a better way to put it.  Imports become cheaper, driving down inflation, which should permit companies to operate at a lower cost, which should eventually work to limit or eliminate the impact of the shift.  These balancing factors generally occur in the long term and specific sectors of the economy will be impacted to different degrees.
"The word ""good"" was used in contrast to ""bad"" but these words are misused here.  There are three kinds of debt: Debt for spending. Never go into debt to buy consumables, go out for a good time, for vacations, or other purchases with no lasting financial value. Debt for depreciating assets, such as cars and sometimes things like furniture. There are those who put this in the same category as the first, but I know many people who can budget a car payment and pay it off during the life of the car. In a sense, they are renting their car and paying interest while doing so. Debt for appreciating, money-making assets. Mortgage and student loans are both often put into the good category. The house is the one purchase that, in theory, provides an immediate return. You know what it saves you on the rent. You know what it costs you, after tax. If someone pays 20% of their income toward their fixed rate mortgage, and they'd otherwise be paying 25% to rent, and long term the house will keep up with inflation, it's not bad in the sense that they need to aggressively get rid of it. Student loans are riskier in that the return is not at all guaranteed. I think that one has to be careful not to graduate with such a loan burden that they start their life under a black cloud. Paying 10% of your income for 10 years is pretty crazy, but some are in that position. Finally, some people consider all debt as bad debt, live beneath their means to be debt free as soon as they can, and avoid borrowing money."
&gt; how come the business world still ignores him? And treat humans like machines?  The biggest reason is that you can't easily make a model unless you assume people are perfectly rational. So, although the assumption that people are rational is not perfect, it can still be useful for making business decisions. Businesses have to make decisions based on imperfect information every day. I don't think Thaler is ignored though.
"@duffbeer and @JoeTaxpayer give great answers, and you should probably accept one or the other, but I would like to recommend trying some of the online tools for Monte Carlo analysis.    A Monte Carlo analysis is essentially plugging in a range of possible values (a probability function) for yearly values of pretty much anything involved in your financial life: salary growth, investment rate of return, expected life span, etc, etc, etc....and then running thousands of simulations on those values to give you the probability that your money will last until you die.  It is basically a really souped up version of a ""what-if"" spreadsheet.   A google search for ""monte carlo retirement planning"" may sound like a hilariously bad idea, but it lists some free tools that you might find interesting or useful. I myself have only used the product from Financial Engines quite a bit, but I believe that is only available through your employer. (If they offer it.)"
"There's an aspect to this question that I really love. In general, it's a question about consumer behavior that can be expanded to inquire about the purchasing profile of any luxury good. Who buys $500 pocketbooks, $1000 wristwatches, etc? I can offer one observation regarding the car. Two close neighbors, both couples drive cars valued well above what my wife and I drive. Both families moved, and shared with us that they failed to save for their kid's college tuition. My response was to feel that this was a choice they made. As I commented to my daughter, ""We can afford anything, we just can't afford everything."" Our budget started with saving both for retirement and college. Very little eating out, and modest vacations, cars, and clothing. This story is getting more common for us as our peers have high school age children.  As others have mentioned, the millionaire next door does not drive a Ferrari or wear a Rolex. To some extent, if you were able to peek at the budgets of these car buyers, you'll find what members here would consider at best, an interesting set of priorities."
I recommend pulling up a retirement calculator and having an honest conversation about how long term savings works, and the power of compound interest. Just by playing around with the sliders on an online calculator, you can demonstrate how the early years are the most important. Depending on how much they make now and are considering saving, delaying 5-10 years can easily leave 6-7 figures on the table. If it's specifically a child or close family member, I recommend pulling up your retirement account. Talk with them about how you managed it, and how much you were putting in. Perhaps show them how much is the principal and how much is interest. If you did well, tell them how. If you didn't do as well as you liked, tell them what you would have done differently. Finally, discuss a bit of psychology. Even if they don't have a professional job and are making minimum wage, getting into the habit of saving makes it easier when they eventually make more. A couple of dollars a month isn't much, but getting into the habit makes it easier to save a couple hundred dollars a month later on.
The shareholders elect the board of directors who in turn appoint a CEO. The CEO is responsible for the overall running of the company. To answer your specific questions: Yes, Steve Jobs could make decisions that are harmful to the well-being of the company.  However, it's the responsibility of the board of directors to keep his decisions and behavior in check. They will remove him from his position if they feel he could be a danger to the company.
&gt; it seems like they pretty much sit in offices and crunch numbers, mostly figuring out how to structure deals, and whatnot.  That's mainly true for VP below. Investment decisions are made by more senior people that sit on investment committees. Not all PE firms focus on operational improvements but some hire industry experts (e.g. former CEOs) and then help smaller firms with their expertise but also access to cheaper financing. E.g. sometimes PE firms would buy some small firms and create a big company out of them.
They typically have no concept of their role in the business.  They provide a service that supports a business function, this business function being the part that actually makes money.  IT policies do not make money. Being a condescending asshole does not make money.  IT personnel doing their jobs != doing my staff a favor.
CEOs, CFOs and Board member are over-rated.  A company runs mostly because of a lot of gray people taking care of the various day-to-day functions needed and done by the company.  CEOs, CFOs and Board member mostly take credit for work done by others.  But, yes, someone needs to make the top **new** decisions or address new top unexpected situations. This is rare, and to begin with, companies with CEOs and CFOs and Board members are very slow in to make such decisions, and their decisions are mostly based on research and recommendations done by those gray people behind them.  So, no need to sweat over a company running without a CEO, CFO and Board members for a while. It will be just fine.
A call center company helps a business by many means in terms of providing phone services such as taking the customers’ calls, answering their queries, resolving their complains, providing customer support, technical support, order taking and processing and lead generation to name a few. These are the top most business operation deeds that almost every company requires.
"While I do not have an issue with treating customers/clients well the whole mentality of ""the customer is always right"" needs to be re-evaluated.   In a case where a customer has unreasonable demands or is treating an employee poorly (by no fault of the employee) their privilege to be right ends. In situations like that it is more important to stand up for your employees then it is to side with the customer. If you do side with the customer in that situation it not only reinforces that behavior from the customer but makes the employee feel undervalued and will lead to morale issues. If your workplace has consistent morale issues you will have a high-turnover rate, this will end up costing you considerably more not just in human capital, but in workplace knowledge, time and most prominently money. Chances are if a customer is being a huge drain of your resources they are likely not worth too much to your company to begin with (see below).   Another reason why this mentality of every customer is valuable is a bad idea is found within the 80/20 principle. Simply put, 80 % of your revenue will come from 20% of your customer base, and usually the 20% tend to be the lowest maintenance and have the lowest resource demand. Another application of this principle shows that 20% of your customer base accounts for 80% of the resource usage within your company. The principle itself is not limited to 80/20, but the axiom of a majority of x is provided by the minority of y is something that remains consistent across economies and cultures.   In short, not all customers are created equal and as a result do not deserve the same resources as one another. In addition to this, workforce integrity is more important in the long run than possibly losing a customer. Average firms provide ""Good Service"", excellent firms provide ""Smart Service""."
Usually business development roles are entry-level sales roles. You'd typically be making hundreds of cold calls per week to set up meetings with more senior sales staff. It seems to be a big deviation from what your major is and the experience you're getting right now, IMHO. Anyone can land a BD role.
Wrong.  $$$ is a tool, not an end in and of itself.  The moment you think otherwise, you become the cliche of an evil, short-sighted, self-absorbed businessman for real.  And your employees ARE your business, the same way a carpenter's tools ARE his trade.  Its a poor carpenter who doesn't take care of his tools, and its a poor businessman who doesn't take care of his employees.  EVERY business is ultimately about people.  Good long-term relationships with people matter more to your bottom line than short-term profits at the expense of those people.  Not just your customers, but your employees, freelancers, suppliers, etc.  Small business owners, at least the successful ones, understand that.   Corporate tools like yourself (talking about paid vacations and workers like they're separate from you is a sure sign of that) think its all about $$$ and nothing else.
This sounds more like a Business Analyst role, but almost impossible to tell with such narrow detail.  My general advice though - don't pick the title based on what the job is today, pick it based on what you can grow it into.
Hmmm... I guess if my choice is representation with a vote or representation without a vote, that vote might be worth some money. On the other hand, I'd prefer option C - operate independent of the union and negotiate directly with the employer and pay no dues.  It seems like it should be up to each individual employee to decide whether to be represented by the union.  Out of curiosity, once a union has been established, is it possible for another union to come in, collect signatures, and force a vote to switch representation? Is it possible for a vote to dissolve the union to happen?  Why is hiring a worker who wishes to be employed without union representation considered union breaking. The members of the union have a right to vest their bargaining power in the union, but why should someone not already in the union be forced to join in order to accept employment?
Commission or no commission, their level of helpful customer interaction is pretty much dependent on the person.   Commission is much better for the Employee if they actually know what they are talking about and allows some with some actual skillful knowledge at you electronic to make a living providing you service.  Versus the retail model where you might have a few college kids that no what they are talking about that will be gone as soon as they can find a real job.
No, but they do have a moral obligation to give the employees that stay commensurately for the share if productivity.   If a company had 100 clerks, and fired 90 with the introduction of computers, shouldn't there be a somewhat balanced share of those savings going to the computer clerks?
Groups of three or four students will jointly decide on a Fortune 500 business in the United States and research this business and its practices in the United States. ( we chose Apple) Beyond a business concentration, focus on components of a concentration for your paper: i.e. benefits, accountability in accounting practices, direct to consumer marketing et al. Other members do research on HR, Marketing, accounting, and I have to research on finance.
I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue.  Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners.  These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders).  This is how every public company operates.   The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders.  So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off.
"What decision? Like what's a decision are you pointing to? All you are saying is generalities and not.helpful to understanding where GE went wrong. It's just the usual ""the execs are to blame""  &gt; every relevant decision in the business falls on an executive whether they take it directly or not.   Are you saying that the individual workers decisions are the reason the individual workers are being laid off?"
As a business analyst, you'll work within an organization, to manage change and plan for the future in line with company goals. This could be for one specific project, or as a permanent of the Business Analysis organization. You'll need to understand a current organizational situation, identify future needs and create solutions to help those needs, usually (but not always) in relation to info and software systems.