vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The government program to keep the unemployed from gaming the system that they mention isn't really what the article is about.  Most of their complaints are about internships, apprenticeships, and unpaid overtime for salaried employees.  The sectors that are most notorious for these sort of things are those that are often over-saturated with qualified candidates.  I work in graphic design.  The for-profit colleges in the US churn out graphic design graduates is disgustingly high numbers.  It's an easy program to sign people up for because is sounds fun.  ""Art is fun, computers are fun.  Make it a career!""  However there really aren't that many graphic design positions available.  Lots of unemployed or underemployed graphic designers means that more of them are willing to work for cheap or free to beef up their resumes.  Cheap freelance options means companies are getting rid of in-house designers.  Those of us that are left can no longer earn what we're worth but to keep doing what we love we have to suck it up and work the long unpaid hours for less pay.  similar things are taking place in a lot of sought after professions like finance, law, advertising, public relations, government, and various non-profits.  It's not terribly ethical, but it's hard to blame employers for not paying interns then they're salivating for a chance to run coffee just to get a foot in the door.  TL;DR: People want their long term career choice worse than they want to get paid immediately."
This is going to seem pretty far off the beaten path, but I hope when you finish reading it you'll see the point... Suppose someone offered you a part time job: Walk their dog once per day for at least 20 minutes, and once per week pick up the dog poo from their lawn. Your compensation is $300/month. Now suppose instead you are given two choices for a job: Your preference probably has more to do with your personality and interests than the finances involved.
"This is stupid. Employers don't pay overtime — they make you go home. But you need money to support your family. So you take another job. Now, instead of working 50-70 hours a week at one job, your working up to 40 at one and then 10-30 elsewhere. Add in the commute, changing uniforms, schedule conflicts, and it's an even worse hell than ""slaving away"" at your main job/career for over 40 hours. It discourages hard work, investing your time into learning your job and getting promoted faster, and decreases your base pay rate in case the employer has to pay for your time and a half in some situations. You can't legislate away the major economic problems our society faces in this way."
The earlier you are in your career, the more willing you should be to take a better opportunity even if it has a short-term financial cost.  You go to college even if McDonald's has an opening.  After college you may take an entry level job with better long-term prospects even if a higher paying job is available.  You may train for some professional qualification. Having expenses you have to pay limits your flexibility to do this.  A variable rate loan that goes up later may give you the freedom to make better decisions early on.  Thus in this case it may be worthwhile. That said - be very wary of variable rate loans.  Unless you have iron discipline, they give the opportunity to bury yourself.
"The biggest driver will your first job out undergraduate.  Cfa and MBA are career accessories but it's tough to reverse a ""bad"" first job.   Get good grades.  Be involved in clubs. Determine what companies recruit at your school.  Network effectively."
In a lot of professional fields the choices are work full time or leave the industry. Many people don't have an option to work slightly less because of how employment contracts are structured. If working 4 days per week for 80% of my salary was an option, I'd jump at that opportunity.
Nothing holds you in place, but your own head. If you want to do something that pays better, try setting goals. Read books on your dream job, learn the processes, and do whatever it takes to get there. I'll tell you this, I am not impressed with people who slack off and want better pay. Skill and knowledge jobs pay more. The trades are a great way to earn a living, if you aren't a smart person, but work hard. You want a desk job paying 100k, get your ass in gear. No time for drinking and getting high, dreaming about the job someone else has. Earn it.
Express yourself as being disloyal and see what happens next.  I have been loyal to every company I have ever worked for since I started working at fourteen. I am now sixty.  Some things have not worked out for me, but I own a home. I have a good job that I love. I work hard and I earn a good living.  Be disloyal to your company and put *that* on your resume and see what your future holds for you.  All you have to do to be loyal to your company is do your job and not betray them. Some companies I have worked for have, in fact, gone out of business while I was working for them and I lost my last paycheck, but I moved on.  In my opinion if you hire me and you pay me for my work, if I understand my obligations to my employer and my employer understands its obligations to me then I am loyal and if I am not happy two weeks notice is my prerogative if there is some reason I can't negotiate a solution.  I will never betray an employer. If I do not want to work somewhere I will leave.
And, you know, I got lots of respect for anybody who goes around doing magic tricks and claiming to be more of a son of god than you and I.  Why sidestep? Case the place and come back a couple of nights later and rip off their computers and whatever else you can snag. Fuck working for the worthless bastard. His paychecks probably bounce anyway.
Congratulations to you and good luck and good health with the baby. I had a friend in a similar situation, and I told him that he could do quite well by putting out the word to an upper-middle-class neighborhood that he was available to setup routers, home networks, etc.  I suggested that he could start at a low enough wage that people would see the beneficial tradeoff to having him come over for a few hours versus doing it themselves. After a few months, he hired someone to take the extra work he was receiving, and directed the more routine requests his employee.  He had a full-time job plus all the extra work he wanted.  Most people who hire him simply want someone they would trust in their home, and his service spread by word-of-mouth.  He also got to meet many people who liked him and were impressed by his work ethic, resulting in many good connections if he ever wanted to pursue other employment. My friend was an IT professional, the best support person at our tech-heavy firm, so he wasn't giving his time away.  He did enjoy doing it, and he did enjoy the extra money.  On an hourly basis, especially once he added the assistant, he was making more on the side than he did at his job.  However, I believe he did start lower than that. Good luck!
"To this I say ""Yes."" Education is overrated, as is recruiting someone from a company they already work at. If they'll jump for better pay, you will eventually lose them to another company that can afford to pay more.  The companies who are only hiring the presently-employed are missing out on quality employees.   Source: I own and run my own business."
The TSP is similar to a 401K.  If you were hired as a federal employee on or after 1 January 1987 you are under the FERS retirement program. That means that you are eligible for matching. If they will match your deposits then the TSP, up to the matching limit, is a better choice. Skipping the TSP will mean that you you are leaving money on the table.
The government will pay relatives who get a simple home health care provider license to care for relatives who are on Medicare. Thus, their grandma requires ""care"" and their daughter or grandchildren provide said care for a fee paid by the government. The US government is literally paying people to take care of their family. It is relatively the same with child-care. It's disgusting. That article is making the argument that they want to work. I don't think taking a part-time job caring for your family denotes a will to work. I build low-income housing. I actually deal with the tenants who do this kind of work on a personal level. You could not convince me that a 26 year old with two kids from two different fathers who on occasion provides ""care"" to their family members has a will to work. I see their daily lives. How does the government even check to see if the care is being provided? Is grandma going to lie? Nope... I can assume that you don't manage minimum wage employees because it is nearly impossible. Good labor refuses to work at that price. The market is much higher. Depending on the job it is usually double or triple. The cleaning guy at my apartment building makes $12 an hour. I've paid minimum wage. The only people I pay that are day laborers, most of which have serious problems in their lives and even then it usually is more. Hell, I've seen a guy from the neighborhood pay as low as $25 a day to people looking for a fix. You are constantly arguing that I look down on these people. It's not entirely wrong, but it's not about the wage. I am very friendly with the staff at the local McDonalds in one of the ghettos of Houston. The manager is a really nice guy. I asked him why certain positions kept turning over. He complained that it was hard to find people and he kept having employees no-show. This is minimum wage and they can't even show up. Do you really believe that people want to work when simple positions that require no skill cannot be filled? You make it seem as though I am assuming the worst.
Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.
"It depends on the role you take. If you go into front office investment banking, there's no avoiding horrible hours as an analyst (slightly less terrible as associate, less terrible still as VP, etc.).  If you're doing corporate finance for for a F500 or otherwise large company, it doesn't have to be terrible -- from what I understand, you'll get busy periodically but for the most part your schedule is consistent and you have agency over your weekends.  ""Finance"" is a broad term that encompasses many different roles at many different institutions. In general, the closer to the ""client"" you are, the less hours you can expect in general (simply because even large corporations' M&amp;A departments do far fewer transactions per month / year than do investment banking groups). But no, you don't have to expect 80-100 hour weeks by virtue of going into ""finance""."
"&gt;They compensate me fairly for doing work that I mostly enjoy. I cant relate to your sentiment. I work for an intercontinental grocery company, as a Janitor and Stocker for one of their local stores in the US. I work swing shift for minimum wage as a Part Time employee. No benefits. Meanwhile, I sometimes work 15 hour shifts (anything over 12 is illegal for part timers, iirc). I have worked every hour of the 24 hour clock inside the span of three days, and still not seen a day off for another week, while still not earning overtime for that week. I've gotten 8 hours some weeks, and 39.8 hours other weeks, without any predictability. I cannot even fully trust the work schedule they publish on Thursday for the following week beginning that coming Sunday. With as little as three days notice with the posted schedule, I am on call to work, or have my shift cancelled, even after I am clocked in for that shift. In the end, I am on call 24/7. And I'm even expected to actively ""represent the company"" while off the clock, as free advertising. No, not simply the ""don't do anything that would reflect poorly on your employer,"" but to actively (without any structured guidance, because that would turn it into labor, and necessitate pay) talk with neighbors and strangers about our low low prices. If we don't spend our own free time to study the ads and specials, we recieve a public shaming among our peers. There is not a single thing that I enjoy about my job. Some of the other people working there aren't half bad. But the best ones usually walk out or get fired for wanting little things like ""respect"". I actually went to college. I have job skills. I almost didn't get hired because of this - but you know, I convinced them I was desperate to have *something* getting me by. A few former college classmates who also work/ed there vouched for me on that.
Yeah in my city almost makes it worth applying at Target. If I have to leave this job be where I go. Most labor intense jobs here and warehouse work pays less then that. Hell Walmart starting pay more then most of these places. That is fucked.
"Yeah... I think what's missing here is that Amazon is an ABSOLUTE last resort place to work.  After my experiences with them, I would just leave the industry and go hang drywall before I'd work there.  There's a lot getting lost in this ""50,000 jobs"" thing- these aren't shovel ready jobs, these are jobs that Amazon would likely just NOT FILL if they couldn't find exactly the right people.   The AVERAGE tenure for an Amazon engineer is ONE YEAR.  People hate working there, and nobody plans on staying long.  They are the most dangerous and toxic workplace in the country right now, and whatever formula they have for extracting value from human misery had better stay locked up in the vault with the KFC recipe, or everyone in this business is screwed. This is where you go work for a year after school, get burnt, and use the skills to go find a better place to work.  Think FoxConn, not ""cool startup with perks"". There ARE some cities who could benefit from this, but I think they're the least likely to get this.  So far California offers the best mix of talent and tax incentives so far, IMO.  Whoever gets this will probably not benefit, in any way. That's how Bezos operates.  This will flood your city with 50,000 dumb ass 22 year olds who don't care about spending 60% of the income on rent(because this is the first time they've paid it!), don't have time for life outside of work, and who plan on quitting when the lease is up.  If you're an Uber driver of a Condo tower builder, you'll benefit."
There's no point in making a scene.  I would just left.  Either this was a fluke and that a bad employee or something common.  The fact they are still in business says it was fluke and/or they got rid of the bad employee.
Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan.   because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents?  Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room?  Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule.  It is not even 40 hours per week.  What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary?   In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man.  I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area.  I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week.  I also took a full load in a difficult degree program.   You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more.  Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...).  So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military.  I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill.  Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.
"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you.  I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice.  If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/).  I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural.  See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you!  And in reading your post - let me say this.  Never see your company as your friend.  Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount.  Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have ""feelings"" towards the company.  If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take.  I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to ""feeling"" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do.  You and your company are not friends.  If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you.  And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career.  I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now.  Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO."
This is true, but Netflix also pays about 20% over market rate (or so I've heard from people who've worked there).  The idea is that you go there, make good money, burn out, and leverage that into your next gig, of which you'll have ample choice.  That's the idea at least, not sure how it works out in practice.
But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:"
Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say that just because a government agency is performing the work, it is now, therefore, objective.  Remember, in each and every instance, it is a *person* doing the actually work.  That person is at least just as likely to be corruptible in a corporate setting as in a government setting.  Rather, I would go so far as to say that they are more likely to be corruptible in a government job as there isn't a tremendous amount of upside.  If you're making $75k a year and have the opportunity for a $100k payment on the side to look the other way, you're much more likely to take it than if you're making $500k per year.  There's also the added complexity of each employees exit opportunities from government work.  For example, if you work for the SEC -- your best employment option outside of the commission is to go work in compliance for the industry (hedge funds and investment banks, in particular).  Kind of skews your incentives a bit, right?
I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant.  Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school?  If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea.  Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially.   So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant.  That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much?  Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now.  For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so.   There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching.  Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging.   All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school?  Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left.  I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!).  Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV.
And cab companies are better? if you like working 20 hours per day to make a halfway reasonable living maybe.   Have to say I prefer an uber driver who doesn't smell like BO from sleeping in his car and dicking me around on the miles to fleece me out of more money.
The precise answer depends on the terms and conditions of the loan, and whether you can reasonably expect to meet them. For example, if you keep the loan, make no payments, there is a good chance that - eventually - you will trigger a clause in the contract, and suddenly be charged fees or a significant interest rate.     If you don't need to pay anything for a time, odds are you will forget to monitor the loan (after all it is not costing you anything) and suddenly get hit with an unexpected expense. Most loan contracts are structured - by professionals - to benefit the loan provider.     The purpose of a loan provider is to make a profit.   They do that by encouraging you to pay more -  up front, over the longer term, or both. Personally, I would never take out a zero-interest loan.   It is specifically designed to appear like a gift from the loan provider, while actually (and almost covertly) costing more at some point. If I was in your position (i.e. if I had taken out such a loan) I'd pay off the loan as fast as possible.   If you have more than one loan, however, prioritise by working out which actually costs you more over time.   And pay the worst ones first.    You'll have to look closely at the terms and conditions - possibly with the help of a professional - to work out which is actually work.
That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.