vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If my experience playing tycoon games is any indication, there is usually a point when you can't help but hoard more money faster even if you do nothing.  Also, giving money to employees could have unpredictable effects. It might boost morale in the short term, but in the mid-long term it could mess up with whatever HR or managers are trying to do in managing their team and culture. It will also make your brightest people leave faster to set up new competitors..
The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its   expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or   two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can   sell it and make more money than dividends.
"The ""more money"" aspect is only true if you ignore the lack of symmetry between employment and contracting. Consulting is another story altogether.  Companies are willing to pay consultants for a number of reasons but the most important is deniability.  If a decision is recommended and goes wrong then the consultants can be sued.  Liability cover is expensive. Cynicism aside, it often isn't cost-effective to keep specialists permanently on the payroll for tasks that are performed once a year. Recently I've noticed that the nature of consulting is changing.  Companies are starting to assemble brains-trusts of internal consultants who can create and manage projects while outsourcing only the labour-intensive data-collection roles.   Expect this to have a big impact on the management consulting industry."
Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them.  When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option.  Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire.   By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions.  Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds.   For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans.   Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working.  Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends.  Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution.  Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable.  The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected.  Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.
If employees are more productive, then you need less of them to produce the same amount as they did before. Companies want constantly increasing demand for their products so that their value does not decline as their growth and output increases. If companies do not increase pay with productivity, then no one can afford to buy up the increase in products and they become worthless.
Businesses do not pay income tax on money that they pay out as salary to their employees.  Businesses generally only pay income tax on profit. Profit is the money that comes in (revenue) minus the business expenses.  Payroll to the employees is a deductible business expense.
Sometimes it's not entirely about take-home pay.  A pay raise can affect other things like: These things need to be considered since they also affect quality of life.
Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.
Share options. If you get options on £200,000-worth of a company and then its share price increases five-fold then you make £800,000, which is often taxed more favourably than salary.
"It's no where near that simple. Defined benefit plans for enterprises as large (and as old) as automakers or the legacy airlines are incredibly complicated. It's not simply a matter of plugging the money into some piggy bank account and ""doing the right thing."" I think the people in these companies do honestly want to do right by their employees and retirees - and offering buyout options is, in some cases, a better deal for both recipient and the company."
The Business Process Outsourcing firm benefits the companies by providing the round-the-clock customer support services. Apart from these benefits, the business solutions that will be offered to your customers are best in the industry. This is because the call center representatives hired by the outsourcing firms usually come with years of experience.
Favoring one position because it is more pleasant or resonates more emotionally despite the logical alternative  is the very definition of naivety.   It is unfortunate that people will lose their jobs but if a company is no longer financially viable, there is no way they can continue to employ them.   Also, touting your age as a counterpoint while not addressing any of the points is  going to sound condescending.
It is how sales people's salaries are structured in a lot of industries.  It is structured this way to try to motivate or offer incentive for good sales people.    It is difficult to compare two completely different jobs based on salary alone, however, I would just say the market rate for their job is higher than your job.  Which is why they get paid more than you even before bonuses.  I look at it a different way.  You get paid your rate no matter what, for them to achieve what they should be making, they need to be successful at their job.  They don't have it easier, they have it harder.
Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money.  And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.
It's not totally serious, but it's an interesting solution to the problem.  You pay them in equity into a trust that then has some operational control.  Meaning they are being compensated for their labor and have their sentience acknowledged.  This would mean they merit more reasonable accommodations since they're employees, and produce distributions which can be used to buy more control or for environmental charity.   I'd also find the inevitable editorials / comments that their QoL has surpassed the foreign labor going through Disney University amusing.
The problem is exactly as described above, they are paying benefits for employees that aren't even born.  Its ridiculous, name one other business who is saving for employees benefits 60 years in advance.  Basically they put 5 billion in bank and made 3 billion last quarter.  Thats pretty damn good IMO.
"Its more than just ""taxes"" it's increased company funding for medical insurance, work comp insurance, disability insurance, etc etc.  There are many many top line liabilities that contribute to the final bottomline. All of the laypeople on here can say, oh there's such a huge revenue or gross profit and not know the details of the net net profit."
They also pay really well and give people freedom.  The dignity you get from not having to worry about your time off being refused or worrying about picking your kid up in an emergency is priceless and builds loyalty.
Are corporations not already passing along the cost of healthcare to the consumer?  When the employer pays, directly, for the employees health insurance, it goes directly into overhead costs.  Goods and service costs have to rise to meet that.  It's already happened.    Ideally, the healthcare savings would just offset the VAT.  Employee salaries probably wouldn't increase any, even ideally.
The benefit was to the employees, not necessarily the company. The employees did it because if one of their metrics that they're compensated and tracked on is how many new accounts have they opened (generally implying new customers they have drawn in to Wells Fargo) then just opening fake or 0 balance accounts was an easy way to hit these goals and keep your job.
Agreed. Even if you don't wish to stay with the company as you mentioned, OP, getting any qualifications you can (especially when they're free!) before you start job hunting is great. Sure, any company you start at will likely pay for it, anyway, but if you can get it now that means you'll be employed that much faster.   Be sure, however, to check that your current employer who intends on sponsoring you does not have a clause in their contract saying you have to pay it back if you leave within so many months. I'm not sure what the standards in the US are like but in Austria if you receive expensive training, most contracts will require that you continue your employment for at least x amount of months or you have to pay it back in full (or partially). This should all be in your employment contract.
It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations.
You're talking about ESPP? For ESPP it makes sense to utilize the most the company allows, i.e.: in your case - 15% of the paycheck (if you can afford deferring that much, I assume you can). When the stocks are purchased, I would sell them immediately, not hold. This way you have ~10% premium as your income (pretty much guaranteed, unless the stock falls significantly on the very same day), and almost no exposure. This sums up to be a nice 1.5% yearly guaranteed bonus, on top of any other compensation. As to keeping the stocks, this depends on how much you believe in your company and expect the stocks to appreciate. Being employed and dependent on the company with your salary, I'd avoid investing in your company, as you're invested in it deeply as it is.
None of those things sounded like concessions. I suspect, if you negotiated health care in terms of percentage of the cost instead of in raw dollars deducted, it'd actually come out that the company was taking a hit since the last contract. (I have no numbers to back this up, it's just that health care costs have been skyrocketing the last few years.)  Seniority rights kinda suck because they're just determined by time on the job and not merit. I'll take someone with 5 years in who's been getting better the whole time over someone with 20 who's been doing the negotiated minimum since the beginning. I'd like to be able to give the new people incentive to kick ass at their job.  The thing I don't like about unions is that they take the individual out of the game. Solidarity leads to one-size-fits all thinking, which is also the kind of thinking that gets companies thinking that everybody is replaceable. Really, everybody'd be better off if good people were hard to replace and average people could get by, but not excel.
And they also benefit the most for all the infrastructure that makes both their business and their customer base possible. You don't earn money if nobody can afford your products, you can't make and ship products without reliable logistics, energy sources, and communications.
Does anybody here have experience with company songs?  I just can't relate to this article.  I have no particular loyalty to my employer - but nor do I bear them ill will.  They compensate me fairly for doing work that I mostly enjoy.  I can't imagine being asked to sing a company song.  When I work extra hours, I do it for the love my craft, not for the love of my company.  Also, as a salaried employee, it is my job to complete certain tasks.  I understand that this may occasionally entail night or weekend work.  However, if this happens too frequently, it is my responsibility to escalate to my management so that my tasks can be prioritized.  Consistent and unending night and weekend work is just a recipe for burning people out and reducing overall long-term productivity.
I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime.  3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.
There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.
Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment.  Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders.
In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half.  When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax.  However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value.  If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you.  From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company.  If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company.  However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation.  Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings.  There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject.  Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings.  If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K.  How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.
According to glassdoor and my own recruiting salaries and benefits are quite different. For example, PWC has about 1200 consulting partners and the average compensation is $600k/year. Accenture Director/VPs are nowhere near that. Senior Manager positions at Accenture top out at 175, while the same position at KPMG pays 225-250.  People don't choose Accenture over Deloitte/EY/PWC/etc.  Most tellingly, the average bill rates at Accenture are quite lower than big4. Public firms cannot compete with private firms in compensation.  A final example, Accenture bonuses above $20k are rare for Manager/Senior Managers. At big4 25-40k bonuses were commonplace these past few years, and these were bad years.  Oh yeah, vacation at big4 is 6 weeks, Accenture is only 5. Etc. etc.
There are a lot of moving parts, individual premiums and annual increases have little to do with employer premiums and annual increases and vice versa. Most people think of XYZ insurer as a single company with a single pool of insured folks. This common knowledge isn't accurate. Insurers pool their business segments separately. This means that Individual, small business, mid-size business, and large business are all different operating segments from the viewpoint of the insurer. It's possible to argue that because so many people are covered by employer plans that individual plans have a hard time accumulating the required critical mass of subscribers to keep increases reasonable. Age banded rating: Individual coverage and small group coverage is age rated, meaning every year you get older. In addition to your age increase, the premium table for your plan also receives an increase. Employers with 100+ eligible employees are composite rated (in general), meaning every employee costs the same amount. The 18 year old employee costs $500 per month, the 64 year old costs $500 per month. Generally, the contributions an employee pays to participate in the plan are also common among all ages. This means that on a micro level increases can be more incremental because the employer is abstracting the gross premium. Composite rating generally benefits older folks while age rating generally benefits younger folks. Employer Morale Incentive: Generally the cost to an employee covered by an employer plan isn't directly correlated to the gross premium, and increases to the contribution(s) aren't necessarily correlated to the increases the employer receives. Employers are incentivised by employee morale. It's pretty common for employers to shoulder a disproportionate amount of an increase to keep everyone happy. Employers may offset the increase by shopping some ancillary benefit like group life insurance, or bundling the dental program with the medical carrier. Remember, employees don't pay premiums they pay contributions and some employers are more generous than others. Employers are also better at budgeting for planned increases than individuals are. Regulators: In many of the states that are making the news because of their healthcare premium increases there simply isn't a regulator scrutinizing increases.
You know what lowers wages?  Social safety nets.  *NOW*...before you read that as advocating for the removal of social safety nets, hear me out:  A low-wage service company would, in the absence of any social safety net, be required to pay employees far more.  Why?  Because employees would be required to cover all of their needs with their wage.  No food stamps, Medicaid, etc.    What, then, would higher wages do?  It would cut back on the need to spend on social safety nets.  Higher wages provide employees with the ability to cover more of their own needs with their labor income.    Unfortunately, this is a chicken-or-egg problem.  I would never cut social safety netting before advocating for higher wages, because I wouldn't leave people out in the cold without needed assistance.  So where do I stand?  I advocate for higher wages *first*, so that we can gradually decrease taxpayer funded social safety nets for working Americans later.
Basically, a bonus is no different from your normal income. You will get the same benefits from putting the money in a 401(k) as you would if you decided to put more of your normal income into a 401(k).