vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This isn't your standard finance job. They likely bring in a ton of candidates and set them loose trying to find people to buy stocks. The ones who are not good at bullshitting people into buying the stock just get cut with minimal lost to the company (that is why they pay minimum wage). Some people are amazing at sales and they can convince people to buy a bag of shit, so they will become very rich. Most other people don't do so well and they get cut pretty quick.  As a career choice, I don't like this because there are other opportunities where you at least get paid okay in the early stages. Minimum wage in NY sucks ass. And if you suck at it, you get cut after a month or two and your commissions probably suck, so you'll be broke. At least, I-Bankers that get cut still have some money in the bank.
Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned ""early exercise"" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise."
"I live in Chicago and while I think the city could do a fine job at supporting the vacancies amazon has to offer, it's not on my radar as a place to work if Chicago wins the bid. For every ""my friend didn't hate working at Amazon"", there are a million horror stories.  Life's too short to hate your job. Not saying you have to love it, but why spend half of your waking life (oftentimes more at places like this) at a place designed to chew you up and spit you out. I've worked at those places. Never again. It's not worth the money (but will probably be worth the experience for a lot of people, unfortunately)"
Yeah true that. Counseling people to avoid the negatives has been more beneficial in my life than great recommendations. Even one mistake and you're up shit's creek. And I will say I have the knowledge to help people to avoid mistakes, but sometimes it devolves into mud slinging (unfortunately). If this wasn't a new account then it might give you an indication of how I've done this in the past. Most of the time it takes too much explaining to get people up to speed though.  A word to the wise: I'd recommend being open to switching industries. Everyone in finance is pretty toxic and all ended up there because of money. End up chasing the CFA (cancer distilled into three exams), grad school, nonsense corporate jobs, or the dream in high finance/small shops where the founders don't think they need another smart hard-working person. Even if if it's obvious they do.  I remember reaching out and counseling a firm on selling a position that I felt was really stupid. It was not at all in line with their investing objectives and also was one I would never touch. The guy actually agreed with me, didn't hire me (I was after a job), didn't sell the position, and lost them approx. $12 million within 12 months with my math on their 13-F's.  I only reach out to firms I respect, which works out to about 1 firm per 100k people in population from what I've seen (in a city like Pittsburgh this was only 4 shops). That means there are maybe 200 people in the US who would make a hiring decision on me for what I like to do. But I've stopped playing that game.  I now run a healthcare business I started. It was hard as hell to open but I now run circles around people because nobody actually is in the business of the industry. The doctors, nurses, etc. are all extremely bright - just not in my area. Makes for a much more fun workday.
"Can confirm - when I owned my business I would outsource some of the ""lesser"" work to a guy in the Philippines - he was more than $15/hr.  This was about 5 years ago, I don't remember exact rate, but I think was about $25/hr. And it was worth it.  I had a guy in the US too, who was great and worth every penny, but I couldn't afford him for everything so I used the guy in Philippines for the smaller stuff. I would feel terrible and insulting asking my guy here to work for less. He was worth what he was asking."
In your proposed service, however, contrary to the servant's usual role, the servant - i.e., the company - would be assuming a portion of your risk on top of their own, yet without any guarantee of profit, income, or even coverage of costs. They're also subject to regulations, fees, liability, legal stuff, etc. that you're not, against most of which you are indemnified and held harmless. If they agree to cover a share of your loss, it exposes to greater liability and more related risk. It robs them of resources they need to invest in their own business, while at the same time forcing them to do all the work. As a result, your model doesn't give such a service a fighting chance. Getting it off the ground and lasting past the first-year payouts would require more luck than skill. They'd be better off heading to Vegas and the blackjack table, where the only overhead is a cheap flight and room, where the odds and rules don't change overnight, and they at least get free drinks. If none of the equivalents satisfies, then the Biblical parable appears to describe your only option for obtaining exactly what you want: Move to a country where slavery is legal and buy an investor :-) Cheers, c"
Sorry yes it's a state school. It's not online only. They offer online courses for their business degrees. I agree about a finance degree and honestly I'm more interested in that field, but the job prospects in my area aren't very good. On indeed jobs requiring finance degrees anywhere near me are a few dozen. Jobs with accounting degrees are in the hundreds. I'm 31. Married. Have a 1 year old and my wife is extremely close with her family and probably wouldn't want to move. I'm looking for financial security in a job I don't hate. My dilemma is that  all of my experience is sales with a financial background. I'm concerned I'll never be able to get out of that field without a bachelor's, but I'm not sure I can justify the expense. Thank you for all your help by the way.
When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job.  When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom.  Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself.  You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)
I think it is, unless you have another protection. For example, I have a legal plan sponsored by my employer that amongst other things, covers representation in case of audits for personal taxes. If, however, you don't have any other legal plan to cover this, I'd suggest getting the TurboTax audit protection. Hiring a professional to represent you in case of an audit will cost several hundreds of dollars per hour. Of course chances are slim, but that's the nature of insurance.
"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (""job shops"") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your ""employer"" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current ""employer"".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area.
It seems there is never a reason to have a gap. Unless you spent that time watching TV, you were still working, even if the pay was lousy. Even the act of looking for employment is a startup business exploring the sales and marketing space. If you actually wanted that time to watch TV, you can list a sabbatical.
A 50% company match on your 401(k) is a huge amount of free money. You'd have to absolutely crush the professional money managers to justify turning it down. If you can do that, you should quit your job and do it full-time.
The choices given are either leave after some reasonable hours or put in endless crunch time until you drop dead.  The reality, as usual, is between those extremes.  Most people are hired to get a job done.  That is likely to require some extra work, and if you really care about the job then that isn't really so bad and is not going to scale up to suicidal levels.    Crunch time as such is increasingly rare because the downsides are so glaringly obvious.  It generates inferior work and burns out critical assets.  At the same time there is no reason to believe that significant professional challenges will necessarily fit neatly into standardized work time arrangements.  Sometimes difficult problems come up and need to be handled or innovative products won't be released in time to make a difference in the marketplace.
Do you understand why private companies pay for their employees to travel in business or first class?  It's because coach class sucks.  Coach class gets you there, weary from the trip.  It's like taking a bus in a lot of ways.  Lots of inconveniences, crammed together with a bunch of people who, if they didn't come in stinking, will be smelly by the time you're at your destination.  Are you on a tight timetable?  Do you need to catch a red-eye to be somewhere else, and attend a meeting later that morning or afternoon, without time to freshen up?  Your associates will be grateful you took a better seat.  Is it worth it to the taxpayer to have their employees sharp and ready to work after the trip?  I think so.  It's not foolish for the public sector to invest in their employees, if we want capable public servants.  The cheapest option merely shifts the costs onto the employee, who will return the favor by not being able to do their best work.
Well, the government pays them more to leave a field fallow than to grow something different.   A good business practice would be to grow something else when the profitability of what you are growing doesn't meet your needs, not do nothing and get a subsidy check.
You need to think harder. It's a front office job.  Just like you don't wear hockey skates to play football, you don't wear stupid looking shoes to work in finance.  The whole job is front office work. If that doesn't tell you what you need to know then you should probably look into other careers.
If you want to go into any asset management/investments, or even potentially down the road, it's worth getting out of the way early on your career while you have the time and energy.  If you want to shoot for a corp finance/CFO type career track, CPA is more relevant. For investment banking (and some corp finance roles such as acquisitions), top tier MBA.
"https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html  ""Too often, critics say, the visas are being used to bring in immigrants to do the work of Americans for less money, with laid-off American workers having to train their replacements.""  If it is a common saying of the critics, then perhaps there is a kernel of truth in there, somewhere. Perhaps not, huh; let's give the benefit of the doubt to the for-profit, multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation, and assume they have the US workers' best interest in mind. /sarcasm"
Sounds like an absolutely terrible place to work if they treat contractors that way. I say that because I was a contractor a long long time ago and I don't think anyone could pay me enough money to go back to those conditions.
I did not file taxes on last season winnings as I’ve received   conflicting advise (particularly regarding self-employment taxes). I   have all my documentation to support my winnings should I file as a   professional gambler. Oh dear. Get a GOOD tax adviser (licensed as EA, CPA or Attorney in Nevada) who's specializing in providing services to people like you and have it resolved ASAP. You're in major non-compliance. If you earned by gambling more than you earned by working in years, and you haven't reported that on your taxes - you may very well find yourself in jail. As to your original question - why on earth would you have a corporation for gambling? Or LLC... Why? What's the liability that you want to shield yourself of? It's your money that you're risking, and the risk is that you lose it, how is LLC or Corp going to help you in any way? Gambling winnings are reported as miscellaneous income (whether you're professional or just got lucky once with a slot machine - no matter), and if you're a pro (and it sounds like that since you're doing it systematically and in order to make profits), then yes, you pay SE taxes on it. Whoever told you anything else told you to break the law. Which you did, unfortunately.
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.    - [/r/legal] [Employment Release Letter to okay looking for another job by current employer \[x post /r/business\]](http://np.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/2e30xt/employment_release_letter_to_okay_looking_for/)   *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)*
As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use.  Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance.  A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help.  It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA.  While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper.  For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300.  But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.
You've got two main options, in my opinion:  1. Don't take the job and hustle to get into the front office off the bat.  2. Take the job, but after a little bit work your ass off to re-brand and get into the front office (of another employer). This could mean going back to school, for example.
Compared to most other corporate jobs it would be considered harsh. It also depends what product you were trading. Some quant structured products trader could probably get away with being a little quiet but forget about it if you want to enter commodities.
Marginally an understaffed store will make a larger percentage of profits from revenue, a well staffed store will make more actual profits from more actual revenue because it can handle the business coming into the store better, which in turns should lead to more business. On a particular day you may see more money in profit from an understaffed store, someone calls out let's say, but trust me when I say that will not continue for very long. On of the biggest challenges new business owners face is they are fugal, as in they don't spend the money they need to. This means buying new equipment, and hiring and giving raises and promotions, so you can handle new business as well. Let say you are making T-Shirts, or really adding new designs to pre-made plain shirts, you can only press one at a time which for a while is enough, but eventually you are going to need another press so you can do 2 at a time, but a lot business owners will somehow expect an employee to produce more with what he has, now orders aren't being filed and you are in a panic and possibly angry but guess what you are angry at the employee not the fact you were to stupid to realize that he needs 2 presses to do the job correctly that's your own fault and you're blind to it, because you feel as if you are working twice as hard than them because of the problem you created! And let's say the problem is different now the press isn't getting hot enough and it take 20% per shirt to get it to stay on correctly and you decide to never fix it, then a light goes out then blank then blank and suddenly you realize finally all of this needs to be replaced at the same time. I've seen things like this happen, in new and old businesses things work fine for the first 5 years then normal maintenance is forgotten, have a depreciation fund ready so it doesn't feel like you are spending any money, that's what that fund is for and you put into it from the beginning, need a $2k equipment, ohh I have $4k saved for this already, it was money intended to be spent on this. But of course some of this is going to depend on the type of business you are running!
I hadn't heard them called the four horsemen before hah (usually the big four or some variant of that), but I can confirm that not having time to spend what you make is a problem when working at one of them. Which is one of the big reasons I left after a few years, got better pay and far better working conditions. Wouldn't have been able to nab the job though, had I not worked there, so it is a bit of a catch-22.
Depends on your company, I guess, because FP&amp;A in our company doesn't do a significant amount of accounting. Take all of this with a grain of salt because I haven't been in the FP&amp;A group, but if I were to rank how much accounting work is done by each finance group from most to least it would be [insert outsourced AP/AR/etc. here], controllers, tax, finance in the business (like embedded in another group), treasury, FP&amp;A, then trading.  Your company may be different, but in my company the FP&amp;A team isn't really booking entries, even if they're looking into a lot of GL accounts to aid in their work. Are you trying to avoid SAP altogether, or do you want to stop doing research in it, or do you just want to stop booking debits and credits? Because almost every lower level role in finance as a whole is at least going to have the research and data gathering part in system, and that's primarily the extent of what FP&amp;A does as far as their work in SAP. Treasury has more responsibility in SAP/other systems because we actually have to go correct entries or make some payments on occasion.
Are you going back so you can find a higher paying job? What type of job are you currently working?      Going back to school is not a waste of time. I did the same thing. At 22 I went back and earned a BBA with a finance concentration from a non-target. I graduated in December and started a new job in January. Granted, the job I got was an entry level position in an accounting department, but the pay was great compared to my previous job (server), and I was finally able to enjoy weekends! I went on to get a M.S. in Finance (50% paid for by the job I got out of undergrad!) and I now work as an analyst for a f500 company. I say go for it!
can I ask career advices from you ? I had 3 years experience in boutique fund management, have done my cfa, and now am about to enroll in master of finance in one of the top unis in UK   Always want to be a trader, but my biggest concern is that since I am slightly older (mid to late 20s), I will be competing with younger fresh grad when applying for analyst program, do you think this is an advantage or disadvantage, or does it matter at all ?   Also if you can pick a region for a trading career, which is best and why ?   thank you
The CFA is not a gatekeeper to any given job, but can be a requirement after you get a certain job (equity research, asset management).  There are even some that actively think it is a waste of time (investment banking).  Networking and prepping for interviews is what ultimately get you what you are seeking; don't rely on the credential to do so.  Source:  private equity 6 mo., BB IB for 3 years, equity research 6 mo.
Perhaps it's best to balance out how it works out for all, especially the most vulnerable, before setting yourself for or against a policy such as this.   You are lucky that you don't have any pre-existing conditions, while others aren't. You earn enough that you are able to afford insurance, even if you're not happy with the fact that you have to pay for it.   But you are unlucky to be working for a company with short-sighted dickheads that look more at the immediate bottom line than they do at their employees. To be honest, if they are scrapping by so much that they need to move everyone to part time to avoid health insurance costs that they already had before, you'd better start looking for another job right away.
Such click baity article, even if essentially true.  People that job hop for more money are not only looking for more money, they must also be willing to keep learning and willing to accept more responsibility.   Good for them, but not all people want to take on more responsibility, or look for a new job when they like the one they've got.