vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I think the answer to this question depends on how much you trust yourself. Most people are wonderful at deceiving themselves. I'd personally not trust myself; I'll use Liam's points for the pitfalls some people get into. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights.  This is actually the risk I've seen many people do. They'll blow their money in one semester under the assumption that 'they'll just earn more in Summer and keep it for expenses or the future."" Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, No Credit (in the USA) is actually a good standing. Many sensible banks or credit unions will happily give people with No Credit a loan. This makes intuitive sense if you think about it. Imagine two people with the same income. One owes money regularly to multiple sources and the other has no debt obligations. Which one are you loaning money to? Simplifying things a lot: Great Credit is best, followed by No Credit, then Good Credit, and then Bad Credit. The advantage of Great Credit over No Credit is simply that some institutions in some sectors don't have the policies in place to process No Credit people (No Credit people plan to not apply for credit often, for self-explanatory reasons, so this is a mote point)."
Forgive me if I was not clear enough. I'm saying it should never be forced on a non business entity via contract or any other means. However, it can be a valid tool between businesses, and there may be cases where it is preferable (advantageous in some way to the non business entity) to bring the case to arbitration. That is why I am hesitant to outright ban it (it be arbitration).
"All I can say, after reading your story, is that if your boss would truly be ""put in a difficult position"" if you quit, then she's in the position to have to pay you.  If the business cannot survive without an unpaid intern, you shouldn't be wasting your time there."
It really depends on the client though. A large listed company that suddenly changes from a Big 4 auditor to a much smaller one is quite suspect.  Sure some Big 4 partners can just sign off with their eyes closed but if something goes wrong, I can guarantee you that the other partners would be more than happy to kick them out.  Auditors generally aren't reluctant to give an unqualified opinion. It's just that when they do, it normally means that the client is so far gone it's not worth dealing with them anymore. If your client refuses to change his accounts and you worry he will drag you and your multi million dollar business down, thats when the unqualified opinion comes in.
&gt; Would you have worked just as hard though if you knew that whatever you do you will alwqas remain in the bottom 10%  This is not something that anyone can *know*... only something that someone resigns themselves to.  You can know that your current path is a dead end.  It's your choice whether to remain on that dead end path or turn around and try something new.
An idiot wrote that story. Right out of the gate they are plain wrong. Interns must be paid (federal law) unless they are SOLELY learning and not performing any work to the benefit of the company. The author should have at least researched one fact. Any fact would have done fine. It's a purely ignorant article.  Source: I've owned multiple business for the last 20 years.
Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.
Any institution that issues checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the passive side. Any institution that clears checks and is connected to the ACH system can be the originating side. Not any institution that can be - in fact is. Your credit union doesn't provide this service because they don't want to. It costs them money to implement and support it, but they don't see the required benefit to justify it. They can. My credit union does that.
&gt;when by definition, you are being paid less than your labour  If that were true then why wouldnt the worker just work for themselves? They would make more or at least the same amount and not have to deal with their bosses bossing them around. The fact is that the worker is made more productive through the use of the entrpeneur's resources and business model structure. If there were no extra benefit to the worker in taking the job then they wouldnt take it, just like if the employer did not recieve an added benefit above and beyond what they were paying the worker, they wouldnt hire them. Extra value is created in the two voluntarily working together. No one is being generous or agreeing to the arrangement out of the goodness of their heart. They are both acting in their self interest and they are both benefitting.
It's a scam because MLM schemes are the closest thing you find to a Ponzi scheme you will fine that is still legal. Selling the stuff is never the way to make money. You make the real money by getting others to join because you get a signing bonus and a percentage of their sales, and a percentage of the sales the people they sign up.   So you only make money by getting as many people trying to sell the thing you are trying to sell which makes it impossible to sell because there are now lots of people trying to see the thing you are selling.   So yes, there are risks to all business but MLM is like playing Russian roulette with 6 bullets in the gun and hoping it jams realising that a revolver almost never jams.  But that is just my ill-informed opinion.
"You sure can.  If you are not part of the union you essentially are negotiating on your own.  Many districts simply offer the same contract to make it easy and less of a logistical headache.  No, an employer would not refuse employment, unless it was a ""closed shop"" which requires union membership.  That varies on the state and the profession."
A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario. Always know your worst case scenario. Yours is this dude is in love with you. When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts. So he systematically destroys your house. Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay ""double rent"" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario. Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family? Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them? If it were just a co-worker? That is really iffy with me. Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person. So wording can be changed to say ""potentially"" in front of living with him in my examples."
&gt;so it is a bit of a catch-22.    Yeah it's definitely a trade off that can pay off.   I guess I shouldn't be so self rightious about it. I made a similar trade but I spent those years in the Marines. That was instrumental in me landing my current kick ass position (due to professional networks, not direct experience) but that isn't a prerequisite for the job.   Regardless, it's definitely something that needs to be fixed. Not nipping this in the bud could turn into the single greatest management failure of a generation. We should all work to correct it once we are in positions of influence.
"I have no problem with such agreements, but if that is the case, then there should be direct financial compensation for locking you out of your profession.  They don't want you to work for anyone else for 18 months - then pay you for that period and put you on ""gardening leave""."
If you participate, you will either get some money or some other renumeration. If you do not participate, you will not get anything. The only risk of participating is that if you have suffered actual damages, the settlement may under-compensate you. By significant, I mean thousands of dollars, since bringing suit yourself would be very expensive. Unless you can demonstrate that you have suffered from significant damages as a result of MBNA's bad behavior, joining the class to get whatever you are going to get is almost certainly a no-brainer decision.
The thing that gets so many people is that multilevel marketing isn't inherently a scam. It has all of the potential that they try to sell you on. It just so happens that every friend you have doesn't have an infinite supply of friend networks completely unrelated to anyone you know, so once you get three or four people in the same area in on an MLM, or if you try to join not realizing that there are already people in on it, and ESPECIALLY if you get in on MLM without knowing ANYTHING about he product aside from the MLM opportunities for your potential marks, or without knowing anything about sales in general, then people start getting screwed.  MLM is cancer.
"Yeah the credit union near me sucks too. Short hours, long lines and impossible parking to go with the subpar online banking and lack of ATMs. Just because the sign reads ""credit union"" doesn't mean it's a good business. Not all credit unions are created equally."
I get the idea behind it but certainly you would agree that it can be seen as a selfish mindset. Say I'm working on a project with this guy and we have a deadline at the end of the week. If he is not willing to stay an extra hour or two on Thursday afternoon to make sure we meet the deadline because he feels he needs to be compensated to put in a little extra effort then that is not a person I would enjoy working with. That's also an attitude that I don't think will get you very far (however fair that may be)  Routinely putting in 60+ hours when you are paid for 40 is different. I wouldn't have anything against a person unwilling to do that but I'm sure most people would prefer working with somebody that is willing to go the extra mile when needed rather than the guy clocks out at 5:01 every day.
"Not sure about that one.   Stark Laws (there is also an earlier, aptly named ""anti kickback statute"") are the ones to prevent ""kickbacks"", as well as to prevent self referral in cases where there would be financially beneficial to do so (to prevent fraud)."
"I will disagree with some of the other answers here. In my view, the most important dimension of the situation is not your friend's potential loss but the potential losses of the people he may convince by using his position as youth group leader, etc., to draw more them into the scam. Exactly how to handle this depends on many factors that aren't mentioned in your question (and probably rightly so, as this aspect of the situation moves beyond personal finance). For instance, if your friend is a ""pillar of the community"" who is widely trusted, and you are not, there may be little you can do, since people will believe him and not you. If you have some influence over the groups he is trying to recruit, you can attempt to provide a counterweight to his recruitment activities. Again, how to do this depends on other factors, such as how he is recruiting them. If he is just privately contacting individuals and inviting them to these meetings, you may have to just keep your eyes peeled for anyone who seems tempted and try to dissuade them before they suffer the ""brainwashing"". If he actually tries to do some sort of public recruitment (e.g., holding a meeting himself), you could try to inject doubt by, e.g., attending and asking probing questions to expose the dangers. If you think the danger is widespread, you could consider taking some more public action, like writing a column in a local paper about this organization. Of course, another major factor is how much you think people stand to lose by this. However, in your question you indicated that your friend has invested ""multiple month or years of income"". If he intends to pressure others to invest similar amounts, this sounds to me like enough danger to warrant some preventive action. Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut.
"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always ""paid on-time"" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee."
For those without a couple hours to digest this - this paper describes how they've been able to measure the secondary effects of credit default swap agreements between banks, and how when the losses materialize in one bank, it can affect the creditworthiness of others protecting it.
"is your credit history ruined, or merely dinged? Is the blow   recoverable? Any bad credit rating event is recoverable given enough time / money to solve the problem.  As far as ""Ruined"" vs"" ""Dinged"", well, that's a matter of opinion; some people think that one bad item is the end of the world, others not so much.  You will have an unpaid debt listed on your report.  This will drop your score.  The amount it impacts the score will depend on other factors in your report. Can the carrier try to get the money back in court? I assume you'll   wind up dealing with a debt collector.  Yes they could go to court, but that's unlikely at least in the short term.  Far more likely is that the debt ends up sold to a debt collection agency for pennies on the dollar.  The debt collection agency will harass you until you pay and they might file in court if they think the debt is more than enough to cover the court costs. Will this affect any other relationships you have? Possibly.  A bad rating may make it more difficult to get credit in the future.  However that depends on numerous other factors such as your entire history.  It could even prevent you from being hired from certain jobs - not many of them, but some.   Is it criminal? Read this: http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html  The US does NOT have a debtors prison.  However if the company decides to file a court case and you fail to appear or fail to abide by the court ruling then, in some states, you could be committing a crime and may be thrown in jail.  At which point you are on the hook not just for the original fee but potentially a plethora of other costs.  Never mind the loss of reputation when your friends, family and coworkers find out that you are sitting in jail. At the end of the day, just pay the debt.  If you agreed to the plan and the plan has an early cancellation fee then the moral and ethical thing to do is pay it.  Trying to see how bad it would be to ignore it isn't the right way to live."
I would worry more about identity theft than your credit score at first.  I would want an explanation of how it happened and confirm that no one has used it.  I don't think it will be too big of a deal on your credit in the longer term.
"In general, it is unusual for a credit check to occur when you are terminating a contract, since you are no longer requesting credit. If the credit check was a ""hard pull"" it will stay on your credit report for 2 years, but will only have an impact on your credit score for up to 12 months. If the check is a ""soft pull"" it has no impact on your credit score. Since you're past the 12 months boundary anyway, I wouldn't worry about it.  That being said, please feel free to continue your investigation and report back if you can get Comcast to admit they performed the 2nd credit check. I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear their explanation for it."
It can be cumbersome for individuals who frequently apply for credit, are contemplating a new mortgage, or who plan to change jobs. On the other hand, a security freeze is particularly well-suited for seniors who are no longer in the market for new credit. And a freeze provides protection for individuals affected by data breaches involving Social Security numbers, as well as victims of identity theft or mail theft. For a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of security freezes, read this report in Consumer Reports. Brian Krebs' post How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze is a primer on what you can do to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft. Fees, supporting documentation, and procedures for placing a security freeze vary from state to state and among the three credit reporting agencies. The web sites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. The websites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. Equifax Experian TransUnion
I hear this a lot but how does it work exactly? Is it the more money you have in your share (savings) account the more weight your vote carries? Or does each member get one vote?  I've been a credit union member for 15 years and have never had any say in anything. I also work for a small bank and both institutions are basically the same. My bank has better rates than my credit union on lended money but my CU pays higher rates on my money. My bank is also a publicly traded company and has regular meetings in which any shareholders can come voice their opinion, I've never heard anything about such activity with my credit union.
"Most directly and most likely, it can hurt your credit score if you miss payments, since it's being reported regardless of whether or not it benefits you. This is a risk for you but a benefit for landlords, since it gives renters more incentive to actually make on-time payments. Secondarily, there's a small risk that Credit Ladder or one of their partners makes a mistake and you have to spend some time correcting it. They do seem to have reputable partners, so it's likely that mistakes can be corrected, at the cost of wading through customer support. Finally, it's important to look at where they get their money.  Credit Ladder charges directly for premium memberships - it appears that those are basically a sort of group discount thing. None of the benefits seem super awesome, but the cost is low enough that I think it could be worth it for some people. So that's one way to make money. Risk here = this service doesn't make enough money and they might phase out the free tier. Now, source of money #2 - your information. According to this source, ""within the Privacy Policy, the company states that [they] may use the personal information collected about you to “provide third parties with statistical information about our users – but this information will not be used to identify any individual user.” It’s not clear if this is the intended monetization of the company, it is a consideration to the user that this information may be sold."" Risk here = they might get hacked or they might sell your 'non-identifying' information. There's no details as to whether or not they are actually doing this, but they have the right to do so. If they got even 10% of the renters in UK using their service, then this data would be quite valuable."
Disputing the remark seems unlikely to move your score, since it is just that -- a remark.  It's hard to say whether the scoring models can/do read the remarks and incorporate them (somehow) into the scoring metric itself. Disputing the revolving account that should be reported as closed is a different matter.  The question there would be what the status of that account is/was.  In other words, is it showing as an open collection or some other status which would indicate the creditor still has a pending claim?  If so, disputing it might have some effect, although nobody would be able to tell you for certain or even how much your score might be affected. If, as you say, that account should have been part of the bankruptcy package then getting that corrected could be important enough to achieve what you're looking for.  You can try it and see, but even if the effect is minor, you still want your credit report to be a true reflection of the facts. I hope this helps. Good luck!
Whilst it is true that they do not have a conference call every time a rating is produced, the parameters of a natural oligopoly do indicate that there are negative effects of deviating too much from the other members of an oligopoly.   There are instances of rating agencies (Moody's) giving lower ratings to punish the issuer for going elsewhere (Re Hannover), but usually a slightly lower rating may be acceptable and is usually corrected to be in line with the competitor shortly afterwards. The power, arguably, is with the issuer in this sense because they can take their business to the 3rd member (Fitch) if the rating is too low from one of the Big Two. The preservation of the 'Big Two', for so long, is arguably testament to the S&amp;P and Moody's understanding of these parameters  If the answer is not micromanaging, what do you think it is out of interest?
"Steve VanWieren, VP of DATA   ""it bothered me how much access just about any employee had to the personally identifiable attributes. I would see printed credit files sitting near shredders, and I would hear people speaking about specific cases, speaking aloud consumer’s personally identifiable information.""  TL;DR - Pretty much a majority of employees were LAZY, talked to each other about the files, made fun of the scores, printed them out, and did not give shit."
Of course your situation is very hurtful at a personal level, and I sympathize. I just don't get your point about being driven further into debt? It would seem that with a lower credit score you are prevented from taking on more debt. That can absolutely be hurtful especially to someone who runs a business that relies on short term credit. As for why they do this, they do it to reduce their risk - they don't want to lend more money, they are afraid that you will lose your job and default. Of course it is not as personal as I am writing it, not for you (they don't target you personally - they target your credit profile) and not for them (it is a matter of how the market views the debt and how much they can trade on such debt, not what they want to do personally). As for the TARP bailouts not releasing enough credit - this is reality. Goverment always thinks it can influence the situation more than it actually can. In order to unfreeze credit there needs to be a growing economy that makes the risk look acceptable. No amount of Goverment nudging will really change that more than marginally. By the way, legislation like this (forcing credit card companies to not raise their rates) can lead to credit restrictions. By artifically forcing the rates down the risk has to be ballanced somewhere - so it will be ballanced by lowering credit lines or by other means. Like any price control, if you restrict the price, it causes shortages. Intrest rates are the price of credit.