vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you know that you want that advanced degree; And there is a way to have your employer pay for some of it or all of it; And you are reasonably certain that you will not be quitting for X years after completing the degree; Then it is financially sound to consider having the company pay for it. If you are interested in finding out if an advanced degree in that field is possible/feasible for you; but you aren't 100% sure; And it is possible for your company to pay for the first few classes; then it is financially sound to consider having them pay for the first semesters worth of classes. The key is to determine if the company has a requirement that you must complete the degree, or you will owe them the money. In many cases you are not committed to having them pay for all semesters. I have known employees who used the company to pay for the early classes, then paid for the last few on their own.  Keep in mind that most employers only pay you for the classes that you have good grades; they require you to submit paperwork before the semester; but don't pay you back until after the semester. Because of a rolling time frame you can protect yourself by keeping in reserve the maximum amount that you would have to repay the employer if you quit. For the companies I have worked for you only had to stay an extra year, you would only have owed them for that last year if you quit. Keeping a years tuition in reserve allows you to mitigate the risk of having to quit. If the question is about risk, then hedging make sense.
It would be meaner to force myself on to someone at a threat of losing there property or possibly jail.  Sadly I'm not entitled to any job I want no matter how qualified I am.  I probably won't be making lots more than I'm making now.
"No, there aren't only 2 choices as I have a good job. In this case though, there are two options, either continue to have the ""bad jobs"" that this rich guys company is providing or he shuts down the company and there are no jobs at all.  It's not a loaded question. I'd rather have a bad employer than no employer at all."
In the current economy there is no upside to working for yourself.  Get in a salaried position as soon as you can, and sacrifice to whatever gods you worship that you don't get made redundant. If you're already working for yourself, and wouldn't give it up for anything, hire someone, and get them off the street.
"It's really not your fault for not negotiating a better salaray.  It's your fault for *having a problem* and not taking care of it.  You felt undervalued and unappreciated, and because of that you left your job.  Do you think your employers *would have liked to know that???*    How do you think that conversation would have gone?   ""Well boss, I've been working for you for a while now, and I've stuck it out while you looked for more people, and frankly I feel insulted at the difference between what you're paying them and what you're paying me.  It's really getting to me, and I'm considering looking for a different position.""  I can tell you how that would have gone.  There are *only* three ways:    The first is that the new guy is being paid for a skill or talent you don't know about that actually does make him more valuable than you.  (You can respond then: how do I get those skills so I can get that kind of pay, too?)    The second is that the person was hired at whatever the asking rate was because they were desperate for people, and they certainly don't want to loose you, so they'll work with you to bring your compensation in line with the going rate.  The third is that they have been having problems with you, you seem poorly motivated, your work is suffering and you don't get along with anyone, so they're not interested paying any more for your services and you're welcome to look for a better deal.    Come on man, the WORST outcome leaves you no worse off than what you did to yourself!  The best outcome could have been worth 15K/yr!  And it would have given your employer the chance to do right by you.  Even if you ultimately decided to take a different position, you would have known where you stood, and almost certainly you would have left with a better taste in your mouth.  Your problem is that you failed to let anyone know about your problem.  Or worse, you bitched and moaned to everyone except the people who could have done something to help."
The net gain isn't $0.  An employer prefers candidate A over candidate B because he thinks A is worth more.  To give the employer adequate incentive to go with B over A, the incentive would have to be worth about as much as A's margin over the expected duration of A's employment.  That's probably not just like $5k.
.. No  If I can make a job offer for $7 per hour and people apply.. Why would I ever pay more? I'm not forcing people to apply. They want the job. If $7 an hour is good enough for the workers who apply, then it's good enough for me. Why pay more when I can pay less? I'll need to hire people soon for packing and shipping and you bet I'll be paying the state minimum wage because I know I'll have people applying to work.
I don't want to get in the middle of a fight between you and your fiancee. Well, I suppose if she gets mad at me she can't break up with me or anything. But I'd say that you were right. Say you took the job. After 3 months there are 3 possibilities:  The job becomes permanent. Hooray, everybody's happy. They say sorry, there is no long term position for you here, good bye. Now you've already quit your last job, this job is gone, and you're on the street. I don't know what the job market is like for people with your particular skills, but at the very least it would be inconvenient, and if you can't find another job quickly, you could be in serious trouble. They say they can give you a permanent job, but the pay, benefits, working conditions, whatever, will not be the same as they were for the temporary job. Now you're in a very poor negotiating position, as if you turn down any offer they make, you're unemployed. Something similar to this happened to me once: I quit my job to take a position with a contracting company. They placed me on a contract making a good salary, all around nice job. Then after a year I was told that the client wanted to turn this into a full time position. They were pleased with my work and were happy to hire me for the full-time job ... but the pay would be $15,000 less than what I was making as a contractor. I had already quit my previous job and moved to a new city. I had very little negotiating leverage. I basically had to take the job or be unemployed. @DStanley says you should have discussed this with your fiancee before making the decision. Fair enough, probably so. This is the sort of issue that can break up a relationship -- I mean radically different ideas about the proper balance between opportunity and security. Better to find out when you're engaged than after you're married. And if you were married you should certainly discuss such things with your wife and at least hear what she has to say before making a decision.
Other answers here explain very well the intent of your question. However, a word should be said about why people make different choices at all. So to directly answer your question, yes there is a theory but it does not say inaction is worse/better and instead explains why different people make different choices and how this information can be used to construct optimal portfolios for a specific individual. And that theory is called the Risk Aversion Theory. You can visit the following URLs to discover more about this theory:
"Find another job and leave ASAP, before the situation starts spilling outside. We all tend to work in relatively small ""work bubbles"", where key people in different companies talk to each other. If you leave now, you leave with your reputation intact and can look for a job while you still have a job If the situation gets worse, you can be ""marked"" as a troublemaker, and will make your search for a job harder. Also, should you get fired, you would be looking for a job as an unemployed person, which is a much worse situation to be in. As you discovered, HR's job is to protect the company, and usually the table is tilted in favor of management (simply because they have  a longer history usually and more invested in them), so fighting the situation is rarely worth it, unless you have real proof of illegal behavior. Get out now"
Let's look at the two options.  It sounds like, at this time, the company has enough cash to pay you a salary or pay your loan off, but not both at the same time. Ideally, in the future, there will be enough cash flow to be able to do both at the same time.  If you start your salary now, when the cash flow increases to the point where the company can pay off your loan, you will continue to receive your salary while the loan is being repaid. So it is probably most advantageous to you to start the salary now and wait with the loan payments. (If you think that the company is not going to make it and there is a danger of not ever getting the loan repaid, this could change; however, you are probably optimistic about the company, or you wouldn't have made the loan and agreed to work for free in the first place.) With the other option, the company gets out of debt quicker and cheaper. I can totally understand your brother wanting to eliminate this debt ASAP.  It looks like you and your brother had different expectations about what was going to happen. That's why it is so critical to put these kinds of agreements in writing. If you had had a payment schedule in your written loan agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. Of course, the issue of how long you would continue to work for free would still be there, but this could also have been decided ahead of time. As is, you have two different things going on that were left up in the air with no formal agreement.  As to what is fair, that is something only you and he can work out. Perhaps you can propose a payment schedule for your loan that the company can afford now while paying your salary; that way, you will start getting paid for working, and the company will start moving toward eliminating the debt.  I hope that you will be able to agree to a solution without ruining the relationship you have with your brother. Besides the fact that family relationships are important, a rift between the two of you would certainly be disastrous for the company and, as a result, your and his finances.
While I can't say how it is in the Philippines, my wife the insurance broker leads me to believe that individual insurance is more expensive than group coverages in the US almost always.  So much so that people will go to great extents to form any sort of business just to insure themselves. If however it is cheaper, can't you simply opt out of your employer's plan?  If you can opt out, will your employer give you any of the money they aren't paying for your insurance? If you can't opt out, or if you paycheck doesn't grow, I can't see why you would want additional coverage especially at such a young age.  Should you lose your job in the near future and you worry about, go get the insurance then. EDIT One big advantage is if you get personal insurance, you might need to get an exam to qualify, and it is likely the younger you are the better you will qualify. But again, you already have insurance that covers you so I would advise keeping the group policy is probably better.
Right it's less or a headache but they still pay more to use the staffing agency overall than they would doing it themselves, benefits or not. Staffing agencies wouldn't be able to make money if that weren't true.  Generally if you are making about $10 an hour the factory is actually paying like $13 hour to the staffing agency.   They mostly just do it so it's super easy to get rid of you with no hastle, if they don't like you. The staffing agencies just places you somewhere else.
Anything front office related. If you start in backoffice chances are you will never move out of there. Mid office (risk reporting, compliance and trade supervision) are better in that regard.  Try applying for an associate in training or some type of capital markets rotation program.
"I am currently an accounting analyst at a small company and am looking for a career change. I have a BS in Econ from a B1G school and 2+ years of work experience. The three options I've narrowed down to are: pursue MFin and move into corporate finance, take CFA L1 and start job search, or start studying for actuarial exams and go down that path. I'm good at math and have high aspirations for my career. Currently I feel under appreciated and underemployed.  Does anyone have any insight/advice on these paths and which is ""best"" in terms of salary, growth, and work/life? Thanks!"
Do you get time and half on the overtime? If you give that up you're going to take a decent hit on overall income. You'll also decrease income because benefit costs are likely to be double or more.   I've been in retail customer service. It rough. Just try to get through it, make the best of things and move on to something else with more overall benefits.
Sure he will, if he's working for 12 bucks already, he fucking needs thats job, he cant afford to get fired. They guy working for a twenny, he's not really all that likely to work his ass off. And what's there to work ass off in retail? Conditions are worse at the minimum wage places already, the richer guy is definitely doing less.
Number one sounds a bit like how are you going to help me.  Your primary focus should be how I am going to help you. One things that turns me off as an employer are questions about how much time you will have off, how much training will you get, etc.  No benefit related questions, you usually get an opportunity to talk to hr.  I'd recommend generalizing number 4, something along the lines of - is the company focusing on new (ideas, focus areas)? What ever is relevant for the position.
A common response to poor labour conditions is: if you don't like your job, leave and get a better one.   However, in Idaho the state is trying to deregulate aspects of the labour market. It's making it easier for companies to enforce non compete agreements. Meaning you literally cannot leave for a competitor if you don't like your employer.   That's a natural consequence of deregulating labour markets: it lets the companies with enormous budgets push around workers, who are at the same time having their ability to organise into unions and bargain collectively undermined by companies who use said economic power to lobby against regulations that protect workers.   So, free market away but don't convince yourself that a lack of regulation will somehow magically lead to a utopian allocation of resources where everyone gets what they need.   In a totally unregulated market, the wealth only trickles one way and it's not down.
It depends on your employer. They may not care to pursue matters if you don't give enough notice. They might be happy to see you go. Or they might be really sad to see you go, but not feel like they need to punish you. Or they might be really angry to see you go, and decide that they want to punish you to the full extent of the law just out of spite. Essentially, we can't tell you that, because different employers will behave differently. My advice? Be a mensch. Give the old employer as much notice as humanly possible so that they can find, hire, and train your replacement. Leave on as good terms as possible. Don't burn bridges. Chances are your new job can wait for another week or two.
A better boss will make the job less of a steaming pile of shit. Why do you think Americans tend to switch jobs every few years? Pay is nice, but having a job that doesn't make you want to roll over and go back to sleep every goddamned weekday is much, much better.
That all depends.  When you fire someone, did you actually make the department operate more efficiently, is the department just increasing their backlog of work/delivering worse service, are they having to authorize more overtime hours for the remaining employees, or are they hiring contract labor to make up the difference?  Are you going to have to pay out severance packages or defend wrongful termination lawsuits?  Generally, unless the layoffs are done via a long and slow workforce reduction process, the savings can't be booked in any sort of a meaningful manner.
I'd say it really depends on the type of job.  If it's manufacturing, then sure, you want to operate equipment safely.  If the job is administrative, operations or engineering...then no, I'm not going to teach you the position for which you should be qualified for.  I will however show you what is expected (how we conduct business).
"And I honestly would geniunely wish you congrats for finding such a job.  Your value as a worker varies drastically by company, sector and location. Different companies will have very different market value data.  For what it's worth, I lose candidates to counter offers like this from competitors all the time. We aren't an evil company simply because we can't pay you what our competitors can. My original point about applying for ""that damn job"" is to encourage those hesitant about applying to jobs that seem outside of their skill reach."
If you take less than you think you are worth, you will hate that job with a purple passion in short order. Either make peace with the amount you settle on or move on.
"If you have decided to do the degree, and are simply deciding whether to accept employer funding for it or not, take the funding. I see no difference between ""my employer doesn't pay my tuition"" and ""my employer paid my tuition but I had to pay it back because I moved on"". Therefore there is no downside to letting them pay the tuition. If you want to move on before the two years (or whatever) is up, you pay back that interest free loan. You are still ahead over self funding the degree. If you have not decided to do the degree, and are letting the employer-funded tuition figure into your decision process, stop that right now. Doing a degree is hard work. You will either work much longer hours than you do now, or live on a lower salary, or more likely both. You might enjoy it, you might be worth more afterwards, and it might open the door to a raft of careers available only to those with the degree. The actual cost of the tuition is unlikely to be significant in this decision process. Removing it (by assuming the employer pays it) should still not be done. If it's worth doing when you self fund, then do it and relax knowing you won't feel trapped at your employer even if you let them pay it (or lend you the money for it if you end up leaving.)"
Hello all, Ive recently accepted a job at one of the big banks as a marketer. Ideally this role leads to becoming a financial advisor. I was wondering if there is anyone here has experience with that career path-starting as a marketer and becoming an FA- and if it was worth doing it over going to grad school or whatever other career interests you had. Also, what were your hours like when you first started? Ive heard horror stories about people coming in before 7 and staying after 7...
If so, are you being paid more than minimum wage? If not, it's perfectly acceptable to consider alternative ways to spend your time and generate income. However, this doesn't have to be at the expense of living with your parents. Have you thought about getting a new or second job while still living with them? If you absolutely must move out of your parent's home, consider renting a room in a house with other people to keep the rent costs to a minimum. That way, even if your main job is low paying, you should be able to put aside some money each month for future endeavors. 2) Should I monetize programming and gamble with the future? What does this mean? Are you thinking you'll write a mobile app and sell thousands of copies for 99¢ each? That would indeed be a big gamble, but maybe that's not what you meant, so you'll need to clarify. 3) Would it be wise to essentially quit programming for the sake of a minimum wage job? I'm not sure how this is different from question 1. So I'll reiterate what I said there - moving out is going to be expensive. You can still do it, but you're asking on a Personal Finance site where the focus is usually how to minimize living costs and maximize income. Without knowing more about where you live (employment opportunities, cost of living) the default recommendation is usually to save money by staying in your parents house. TLDR: Don't focus on anyone else. They are not preventing you from getting the job you want. Look at your own skills and qualifications (not just programming, consider all of your abilities). What are you good at? Who might need those skills? What is the cost of reaching those people (commute time, moving nearer)? What is the reward? If the reward exceeds the cost, start approaching those people. Show them what you can do."
Thanks for the reply! I am considering all lines of work as the priority is the location, then the job. But if the work I can get is relevant and expands my network, that carries a lot of value.  The plan is to stay where I am for the next 2-3 years to gain the required work experience to become a charterholder and developing my skills/project portfolio to become a better candidate. I would still be young enough to move to Australia/UK on a working vacation/youth mobility and I want to be set up to have a good chance by then.
"You are a public employee. You have no right to hold taxpayers hostage.  See the quote from FDR that is just about everywhere these days.  If you have a MAJOR problem with the ""safety/risk"" inherent in your job and you don't want to be subject to them... then quit and get into a different profession."
If you are struggling with debt and cannot realistically pay your debts off with your current level of income, these businesses offer, for a fee, to negotiate with your debt providers a sum that you can realistically afford to pay. The debt providers will consider the offer because they would rather get some money back rather than nothing (as these are usually unsecured loans). For you it can be a better deal than going bankrupt or trying to struggle endlessly to pay off something you can't afford to pay off. Note, that even though you won't be bankrupt, you will be treated (by lenders) very similar to being bankrupt. In other words, it will be very hard for you to get new loans in the near future.
lol it's a dying job my man. But if you think about it, an algo is basically a formalized array of someone's personal judgement and trading patters connected to direct market access. I was just lucky to fill a junior role in a shop run by guys who have seen 30 year bonds they invested reach maturity. But yeah, theyre not gonna hire a freshie who doesn't know basic market mechanics, asset valuations, etc.   It's just harder now to get gigs like this because the industry has shrunk so much and the role of a trader has shifted much faster to automation than many expected.
take what you can get man. first off if you're offered a good job then take it. I dont know what kind of school you went to and i dont know pay scales in reno area. i am super close to nyc and if a good company gave me 40-50k i would take it in a heartbeat and my cost of living, i would assume is higher than Reno's. You would be really selling yourself short if you turned down a job because they offered you less than what you expected. 40k seems reasonable for now but whats more valuable is experience which will lead to a job that pays you what you really want.