vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I see a lot of promises of pay and plans to do so but very few data on people being paid.   Higher minimum wages are great but for me until they've been doing it for a while it doesn't amount to much.
"I get what you are saying, and I have actually asked for and gotten raises in some previous jobs, so I know it's not impossible. But in a case like this, do I go in and say *""hey I know Bob does the same job and makes X more money than me, so now I want a raise for X""*? Like the title of the post implies, this is the exact reason employers want to keep employee salaries confidential, and I doubt they'd appreciate you bringing it up while asking for a raise. So I guess the other option is to ask for a $15k raise out of nowhere. Might be possible, but **not likely** going to happen.  Assuming Bob and I have the same job description, experience, and skill level, why should he make more because he happened to get hired during a talent shortage? Yes the company needs to offer a better salary to attract new talent, but when that's not reflected across the board even for current employees, and when companies rely on keeping it a secret instead, they breed mistrust and resentment."
"As a contractor, I have done this exact calculation many times so I can compare full time employment offers when they come. The answer varies greatly depending on your situation, but here's how to calculate it: So, subtracting the two and you get I've run many different scenarios with multiple plans and employers, and in my situation with a spouse and 1 child, the employer plans usually ended up saving me approximately $5k per year. So then, to answer your question: ...salary is ""100k"", ""with healthcare"", or then ""X"" ""with no healthcare"" - what do we reckon? I reckon I would want to be paid $5K more, or $105K. This is purely hypothetical though and assumes there are no other differences except for with or without health insurance. In reality, contractor vs employee will have quite a few other differences. But in general, the calculation varies by company and the more generous the employer's health benefits, the more you need to be compensated to make up for not having it. Note: the above numbers are very rough, and there are many other factors that come into play, some of which are: As a side note, many years ago, during salary talks with a company, I was able to negotiate $2K in additional yearly salary by agreeing not to take the health insurance since I had better insurance through my spouse. Health insurance in the US was much cheaper back then so I think closer to $5K today would be about right and is consistent with my above ballpark calculation. I always wondered what would have happened if I turned around and enrolled the following year. I suspect had I done that they could not have legally lowered my salary due to my breaking my promise, but I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't get a raise that year either."
"I don't know which field of work you're in, but in my field I found the classic ""fuck you, pay me now"" to be very beneficial to me. Go check it out. I hope it helps you out as much as it has helped me: http://creativemornings.com/talks/mike-monteiro--2/1"
"idea that somehow people will take a lower income job and automatically grow into a higher paying one.  It doesn't happen automatically. But it does happen all the time. It's climbing the corporate ladder if you will.   ""leads to trying to have a workforce that's minimum wage with little room for growth""  Simply untrue at most successful companies. If you provide value, they pay you what your worth or you jump (if you are smart enough). I see it all the time.   Minimum wage may or may not have kept up with inflation, by that's like saying working at McDonald's only affords me such and such lifestyle. Defined circumstances are required to solve the problem. Inflation isn't directly solved by upping the minimum wage so move on to a better solution.   ""Jobs a worthy cry but can't be only metric to ensure people have opportunity to live decently"".   Jobs are the opportunity. Where there is specific abuse in the workplace denying people equal job opportunity, we fight it. If you don't pay me enough, and I am forced to work for you... that's called indentured servitude which is an abuse and illegal as humans are property in such a case. But if you force me to pay you more than I want to, somehow that's okay? Goes both ways. Leave to a company that pays you what your worth if I don't pay you enough. This is how the most people grow over time to better salaries and more prestigious titles.  ""Lots of college grads with low paying jobs""  Define ""low paying"". I'm a college grad. Wife is too. Lots of people I know are. What $ we make varies greatly from person to person based largely upon the opportunities we created/took not because of a mandated min wage."
We can support people incapable of or unwilling to support themselves without tampering with the labor market by setting an artificial wage floor. The real minimum wage is always 0. Any floor you set above that simply guarantees that someone not providing X dollars of value per hour to their employer will be unemployed.
If you have the ability to collectively bargain, who are you to say those workers can't use capitalism to its full advantage?  You seem to be under the impression that a negotiation is a one way affair and should be kept that way.  No wonder you make less than $250k a year, am I right?
If they don't deserve it then invent a widget that complies with state law or push to be rid of the law requiring that we employ someone for a unnecessary task. The workers still deserve a fair wage, and we should not rely solely on slow moving market forces that will supposedly fix the issue.
Employers will only ever pay the lowest salaries they can get away with.  High tech labor needs to quit working for peanuts. When they realize they need us to keep the world turning, they will be forced to pay more.  This is nothing new. It is a matter of respect.
"This is a poor argument. If I could make $500 an hour but could only work 1 hour per week, I'd be broke and still ""more successful"" given your example. Salary divided by hours worked (or even effort for that matter) ignores economies of scale. Just because you're efficient on a per unit basis doesn't mean you have the same potential as someone else that can ""sell"" more units than you."
What you are describing is lifestyle creep. No where did you mention how to apply a living wage per person, let alone per situation.   What if I was hired at a wage of 1800/mo and only used 1500 for living expenses? Would that be a livable wage? What if I then decide to have 4 children over the next 4 years? Should the employer be forced to pay more on the aspect of having children alone? If that is the case, what are you incentivizing, child production or productivity? Unless those children work too (which is bad, mkay), they are at a net loss to the employer, and he/she has no ability to put you in a more productive spot, so what should this employer do?  At what point do you stop raising the UBI/minimum wage/whatever form of inflationary behavior and or redistribution? You are trying to achieve fairness across a wide spectrum of individuals and situations and there is zero gaurentee that all of them, or even most of them will benefit in a positive manner.
I don't know, relative worth might be hard to judge, but I'm pretty sure if you could satisfy all needs and most wants you wouldn't have much trouble with disagreements between people's work value.  Also, get rid of money and trade.
Well, there's also the related matter that the rate of pay increase for average workers has increased at a small fraction of executive pay. There are many ways to remedy this, including raising top tax rates (though by no means exclusively).
"Just a real-world counterpoint, in the UK, we negotiate the ""before tax"" salary as some number of pounds per period of time. Out of this amount, income tax is typically deducted and this calculation is quoted on the payslip. (Like most of the rest of the world.) However, there's another grade of income tax called ""Employer’s National Insurance"". This is calculated just like the other forms of income tax, paid by the employer directly, but the employee never sees this on their payslip and it is not part of the negotiated salary. https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates So say you're an employer and you've budgeted £1000/month for a potential employee's salary. You'd have to offer that person £878.73/month salary to bring the amount you'd actually be paying to the £1000 you've budgeted. Why they do this, I have no idea. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/4917/what-is-the-rationale-for-employers-national-insurance-in-the-uk"
I had o conversation with our HR VP about a year ago and he said the same thing.  But I did make him realize he'd better offer more money for the position I needed filled.  We found a great guy within three weeks when we upped the pay another 20k.
Considering that they are paying non-waitstaff 2.13/hr is a pretty good indication that they are looking at the (short term) bottom line, employee satisfaction (and service) be-damned.  While pushing people to part-time status might not have been 'in the parking lot', I'd be willing to bet that cutting costs in any legal manner possible is probably right in the decision maker's wheelhouse.  This approach can make a lot of sense...if you aren't in the service industry.
"What makes a ""standard"" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, ""a good raise is 5%"" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as ""standard"". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company.
"This has been my technique for negotiating salary for a new job. I simply tell the company/recruiter, ""I don't negotiate. Give me an offer. If I like it, I'll take it. If I don't, I'll leave, no hard feelings, and look for another job. No second chances, no back and forth.""  Has worked -very- well for me."
Not optional, but I assumed the premise was that with out having to pay for health care corporations would pay more in wages. In the US that is never going to be true.   In other words they would use the VAT and not having to pay for health care as an excuse to extract more profit. Employee wages wouldn't go up, corporate health care costs would go down, and the VAT would be passed on to the consumer through higher prices.
Oh, man, you are in for a life of disappointment if you think it's this easy. Ask your dad why he didn't think of this idea years ago. Owning and maintaining a business is quite difficult, and the business owners I know are stressed out and work hard just like everyone else. (Except with the added benefit that many people hate them and say that they've only been successful due to dishonesty.)  But, if you want to start, look at your profit and loss statement (you do calculate one, right?) and determine how much additional fixed cost you can afford. Look into local employment law with your lawyer and determine how much an employee would cost. Then figure out the duties you want them to do, and check local job postings to see if someone in your local labor market will meet those needs for the compensation you can give. If so, determine the value of those contributions. If the value is greater than the costs, go ahead and hire. Rinse and repeat.
This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better."
Public sector union rep here.   1) First class? You haven’t worked for many non-profits, have you?  2) the idea that I’m essentially a public employee is ridiculous. My members pay my salary out of their paycheck. I’m accountable to them, not their employer. That’s like saying the groceries they buy are public property or their house is a public building. Once the government pays my members, that money is theirs, period.
No.  The premise is just that the money paid, by employers, to fund employee health care is just being replaced by the VAT.  If the numbers worked out right, the employers would (ideally) experience a near net zero change.    Employee wages need not go up.
"are you implying that employees with families, a desire for personal time, any degree of physical/mental ailment, are ""bad employees"". good AND bad employees are a risk when they are treated poorly with complete disregard.  by enslaving the standard worker to a non-livable wage in which they cannot even afford to take time off you are virtually ensuring that no corresponding value can be added to the system except by those who are well off.   I responded to another post in this thread asking what the minimum wage should cover. and i ask the same to you. what do you believe that index should be. by your logic, even slavery can be considered the index."
In 2011 Walmart total executive pay [was just shy of $60million](http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=WMT&amp;region=USA&amp;culture=en_US).  Let's make them earn zero.  That would work out as a raise of $2/month per employee.  While I agree with your sentiments about executive pay, such laws never work.  For example the executives could just move to Canada.
There is currently a bill in Washington that will change the limit for salaried employees receiving overtime pay. It will be raised to $50400. I work 4 hours of overtime each week, which if the bill is passed, equates to an additional $7800 annually. If my company raises my salary to just above the limit then they would not have to pay the overtime. That would only be a raise of approx. $3000. Why would I want to take the raise, and still have to work the overtime, when I can choose to not take the raise and possibly not have to work it any longer. I would rather have the time off, but if I'm going to have to work it, then I'll take the more than double overtime pay.
What somebody is paid is directly tied to the worth they generate for their employer.  Management consultants, investment bankers, etc actually generate significant value for their employer.  The supply of people that can do these types of jobs is fairly small.  Supply and demand sets salaries.  The largely government-sector jobs that Reich mentions require the theft of wealth from the private economy in order to staff.  Jobs that have true value to society, such as teachers, hospital staff, etc, can and do find private funding without government coercion.  The best teachers make hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in private educational institutions.
You can compare your salary increases to the CPI in your county to ensure your pay is at least keeping up with the increase in goods and services in your country. You can also compare your salary with the average wage growth in your country. But you also want to make sure that any savings or investments you may have are also keeping up with, or even better, beating CPI. This will make sure that your savings/ investments are growing in real terms.
Well, in a perfect world, those goals are not conflicting with each other. Workers should be paid as much as their productivity allows. Unfortunately, the bargaining power of companies is much stronger against that of any individual. Esp. in such a buyers' market (for labor) like now.
There are some cases I'm aware of where a large employer will offer alternative HSA vendors, but this is not the norm as far as I'm aware, and would only be an option if your employer has already negotiated for this with your insurer. It's likely that this specific vendor is built in for the particular HSA product your employer has elected from Aetna. If this really ticks you off on principle, you can check if they offer a stable value fund. If so, you can essentially treat this money as part of your emergency fund, and somewhat reduce your own emergency fund and invest that money however you see fit.
Salary increases will come here largely from job seeking rather than raises, because businesses don't tend to cut wages and thus are reticent to significantly raise salaries; they'd rather just hire more people, and then cut jobs when the economy weakens (or inflation drops). This is even more true in low wage jobs, such as minimum wage positions, where wages cannot be cut but salary increases have little real effect on job retention; it's easier to change the number of hours for PT employees, or the number of PT/FT employees. Deflation, on the other hand, leads to decreased flexibility, layoffs, and lower consumer spending. While it sounds good to say 'hey, prices are going down!' to your average consumer, you have to keep in mind that those prices are what keep the businesses going that drive our economy and pay your salary (either directly or indirectly). If your employer started making 5% less per year, do you think they'd keep you employed? Maybe not, and at the bottom (service industries, fast food restaurants, grocers, etc.) there would be significant cutbacks if deflation hit them. I would note that 5% inflation is probably a bit high; most economists like 2% to 3%, and the Federal Reserve has said that 2% is the right target. They're mostly concerned with avoiding deflation, as that's a big risk to the economy; the advantages of mild inflation are relatively minor, compared to the damages of deflation, and tend to be more correlations (you get mild inflation in a good economy, as much or more than you need mild inflation for a good economy). Most important, probably, is consistent inflation. Consumers and businesses can act rationally if the inflation rate is relatively stable and predictable. When inflation jumps or drops, it changes the potential outcomes for choices made by investors, consumers, and businesses, meaning choices they made in the past are now suboptimal; if the inflation rate is jumping around (1% one year, 4% another, -1% the next) investors, businesses, and consumers will be relatively conservative in their choices, which leads to a bad economy.
I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.
This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.
Because many companies are not willing to pay more to attract those employees. They figure fuck it, the government says I can pay this little. I am. In fact, many wait jobs are paid the 2.50$ min because tips. So employers can make as much as possible.
"Generally speaking, the ""we lose good people if we don't pay more"" at organizations where productivity is impossible to measure are usally horsehit.  The actual situation is usually: ""The next person I hire won't do both of our jobs if I can't give them a lot of money, if I have to pay them less I will actually have to work""."
Yes. But this should only apply in the case where workers consider the market clearing wage to be too low, rather than the issue in question where it appears clear that employers consider the market clearing wage too high.  Caveat: there should be some allowance for subsidy / protection of industries critical to national security and infant industries that face innovation costs, as well as a robust social safety net for workers who find their individual skills mismatched to the market.
Even if you're working from a liveable wage, people will still want extra luxuries that wage can't afford. Paying higher-ranking positions more will give incentives for employees to work harder and earn promotions just as before.   As for your second question, ideally, the changeover would be implemented over a period of 3-6 years, to allow the market time to adjust. Failing that, some compromise solution may be reaching. Say, a more modest raise to $12, which would still drastically increase the average American's ability to make a living.  However, given that California's recent raise in minimum wage to $15 has, by all indications, worked out quite well so far*, it seems like expanding that rise to more states should not be out of the question. Granted, what works for California may not work for the nation, but overall, i'd say a $15 minimum wage is pretty reasonable.  *  http://irle.berkeley.edu/effects-of-a-15-minimum-wage-in-california-and-fresno/  https://economicrt.org/publication/effects-of-a-fifteen-dollar-an-hour-minimum-wage-in-the-city-of-los-angeles/
I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company.  In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same.  In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.