vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt.
Based on that logic, go to a casino and bet it all on black...you have a better chance of being right...certainly it will minimize the duration of the pain...   I hope to gonzo that you have better research behind this decision than a simple feeling...don't forget that with options it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong as to if gold will drop or go up in price...what matters is WHEN that will happen...options have a limited life...If you think this is a bubble then so be it, but make sure you have done your homework with regard to TIMEFRAME!
True economy consists in always making the income exceed the out-go. Wear the old clothes a little longer if necessary; dispense with the new pair of gloves; mend the old dress; live on plainer food if need be; so that, under all circumstances, unless some unforeseen accident occurs, there will be a margin in favor of the income. A penny here, and a dollar there, placed at interest, goes on accumulating, and in this way the desired result is attained. It requires some training, perhaps, to accomplish this economy, but when once used to it, you will find there is more satisfaction in rational saving, than in irrational spending. Here is a recipe which I recommend; I have found it to work an excellent cure for extravagance, and especially for mistaken economy: When you find that you have no surplus at the end of the year, and yet have a good income, I advise you to take a few sheets of paper and form them into a book and mark down every item of expenditure. Post it every day or week in two columns, one headed “necessaries” or even “comforts,” and the other headed “luxuries,” and you will find that the latter column will be double, treble, and frequently ten times greater than the former. The real comforts of life cost but a small portion of what most of us can earn. Dr. Franklin says “it is the eyes of others and not our own eyes which ruin us. If all the world were blind except myself I should not care for fine clothes or furniture.” It is the fear of what Mrs. Grundy may say that keeps the noses of many worthy families to the grindstone. In America many persons like to repeat “we are all free and equal,” but it is a great mistake in more senses than one.
The issue with spending a lot on a particular project (e.g. SWAT) is that you're compelled to use it, even when it's not necessary. Same with riot gear, armored personel carriers, pepper spray, tazers, helicopters, rubber bullets etc. If you paid for it, you have to use it as much as possible. So you end up with more violence and death because of poor investments.  That said, there's of course a balance to be struck. No sargeant should be making $200k+ and no officer should be making &lt;$40k.
Emergency funds, car funds etc tend to have to be accessible quickly (which tends to rule out CDs unless you have the patience to work something like a monthly CD ladder, an I don't) and you'll want your principal protected. The latter pretty much rules out any proper investment (ETFs, mutual funds, stock market directly, Elbonian dirt futures etc). It's basically a risk-vs-return calculation. Not much risk, not much return but at least you're not losing from a nominal standpoint). Another consideration is that you normally aren't able to decide freely if and when you want to pull money out of an emergency fund. If it is an emergency, waiting three weeks to see if the stock market goes up a little further isn't an option so you might end up having to take a hit that would be irrelevant if you were investing long term but might hurt badly because you're left with no choice. I'd stick that sort of money into a money market account and either add to it if necessary to keep up with inflation or make sure that my non-retirement investments over and above these funds are performing well, as those will and should become a far bigger part of your wealth in the longer run.
"In regards to the suit: the flap in the back might have a few stitches holding it together and some pockets may be sewn shut so you need to at least cut the ones on the back flap. There's no easier way to show you don't know what you're doing than showing up with those stitches in place.   Have a story ready for any BS interview question they could ask. They're all the same questions ""tell me about a time when you had to improve a project halfway through."" If you don't have a story for it just make one up but don't make it obvious.   Good handshake with eye contact is necessary. I'll edit with more if I think of anything. I ran a professional org in college so I gave presentations on interviewing all the time. Just be yourself."
"First off, leaving money in a 529 account is not that bad, since you may always change the beneficiary to most any blood relative. So if you have leftovers, you don't HAVE to pay the 10% penalty if you have a grandchild, for instance, that can use it. But if you would rather have the money out, then you need a strategy to get it out that is tax efficient. My prescription for managing a situation like this is not to pay directly out of the 529 account, but instead calculate your cost of education up-front and withdraw that money at the beginning of the school year. You can keep it in a separate account, but that's not necessary. The amount you withdraw should be equal to what the education costs, which may be estimated by taking the budget that the school publishes minus grants and scholarships. You should have all of those numbers before the first day of school. This is amount $X. During the year, write all the checks out of your regular account. At the end of the school year, you should expect to have no money left in the account. I presume that the budget is exactly what you will spend. If not, you might need to make a few adjustments, but this answer will presume you spend exactly $X during the fall and the spring of the next year. In order to get more out of the 529 without paying penalties, you are allowed to remove money without penalty, but having the gains taxed ($y + $z). You have the choice of having the 529 funds directed to the educational institution, the student, or yourself. If you direct the funds to the student, the gains portion would be taxed at the student's rate. Everyone's tax situation is different, and of course there is a linkage between the parent's taxes and student's taxes, but it may be efficient to have the 529 funds directed to the student. For instance, if the student doesn't have much income, they might not even be required to file income tax. If that's the case, they may be able to remove an amount, $y, from the 529 account and still not need to file.
Have you changed how you handle fund distributions?  While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase.  While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day.  I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year.  Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now.  Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund.
"My ass.  Government regulations are VERY necessary to ensure health and safety.  The free market can't decide everything.  What you are failing to realize is that sure, it's bad for business for a company to fuck over their customers, however that doesn't mean that people should have to get hurt, poisoned, or killed by ""bad"" businesses that haven't went under yet.  You sound like one of those ridiculously paranoid conservatives who think that Obama is an evil socialist."
One of my ex-employers stateside had a BES policy that disabled Push after 8PM each night weeknights and all weekend long. Was pretty neat. Too bad their IT people also decided to twiddle every BES bit they could find including encryption, memory scrubbing while idle, disabling USB mass-storage mode, and disabling MMS. We finally got them to reverse the USB mass-storage gaffe but they left encryption turned on for the SD card so if the phone died, your data on SD was gone.  This whole employer/personal phone thing is a tough nut to crack. Solutions will be interesting to see. I like one paradigm on Android phones, installing a third-party Outlook replacement such as RoadSync (not a plug, it's just one I found that had features I liked, the UI is actually kinda weird, using radio buttons in e-mail lists that also act as checkboxes and whatnot) and have the third-party Outlook replacement enforce necessary Exchange policy on the application itself, if the app gets wiped, the app loses its data but user data is left intact. The neat thing I like about such software is most has scheduling, so YOU can control when you want it to stop checking e-mail. Mine stops in the evening and weekends and starts back up in the morning.  Nokia had a pseudo-interesting method where you could have a home profile and a work profile but that mostly controlled ringtones, etc.  Some have suggested doing a hypervisor scheme where you run two OSes concurrently and one is work, one is personal...it's a tough situation. Employers want to maintain a vice grip on their data, but people don't want an electronic tether, as it were. Carrying two devices for most people is impractical.  Silly world with your technology.
"It's not something for nothing. If people need healthcare or shelter at a particular time in their life, you give it to them because they are human - that's something. Our current system doesn't properly reward ""something"" anyway. Some of the hardest workers in the economy get virtually nothing for their labour while others are rewarded excessively for making little contribution simply because they handle money and supposedly have more responsibility. You're assuming market based reward is fair and just. It's not. Redistribution is necessary to create a better society."
It is a very bad idea in almost all circumstances to borrow/withdraw from an IRA (or other retirement account) for a down payment on a house and I would only suggest it as a last resort. Even as a last resort it is a bad idea, and I'd suggest you aren't ready to buy a house until you have enough non-retirement money to do the deal. In your case you have money in savings, you should absolutely do that. If you don't feel comfortable using your emergency fund, you need to keep saving until you can afford to buy a house. Your retirement fund isn't a piggy bank for when you need money now, it is a payment you make to keep a decent lifestyle later in life. When you are retired your options for alternate income streams will be much more limited.  The biggest hidden cost is the opportunity cost of not having that money working for you. Your final retirement balance is very likely (when done correctly) going to be mostly comprised of the return on your investment more so than the money you put in. While you are young your greatest asset is time for that money to grow, don't throw that away when you have viable options! The other problem, if you are talking about an employer plan (401K/Roth) is that if you lose your job you will have 60-90 days to pay back the loan or it will be considered a distribution and subject to taxes plus a 10% early withdrawal penalty. This happened to a bunch of my friends from work when our company got bought by another company forcing them to close the old 401K plan and transfer to the new one. Short version: Don't touch retirement money for non-retirement things unless it is a life/death emergency and you have no other options.
The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that.  Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question :  Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back.
&gt; If you want to argue that businesses are more important than people  I don't think businesses are more important than people, I just think that the public good is not their concern. Leftists seem to think that the public good is supposed to be everyone's concern, I do not.   &gt; There's plenty of businesses out there charging a fair markup for a quality product or service and paying a fair wage.  There is no such thing as a fair wage. I mean that literally. It's a nonsense phrase. What is fair? Where is fair? What does fair mean? There is only an agreeable wage. Walmart is entitled to pay you as little as you will let them, regardless of how that impacts your wellbeing, because I don't think your wellbeing is their concern. The same relationship works in reverse, You get to try to get them to pay you as much as you want, even if it hurts their business, because their business is not your concern. Wherever you both agree is whatever you get paid. Fair is nonsense, it means nothing.  I don't like social management as an idea. It is only ever a necessary evil. I don't believe social progress is a respectable value and I mistrust anyone who professes to want it, because what they really want is to control the world. I don't think you or anyone else gets to control the world, I think you get to control what's yours and nothing else. I don't want the public good to be something *anyone* is concerned with as a matter of course, only as an exception when really necessary.
I don't think asking a business to pay living wages is as cold as a business paying unlivable wages for work that keeps their business afloat. A business that is only profitable because they pay shit really shouldn't exist in the US.   Look I'm not about destroying jobs- but I am about someone who works 40 hour weeks making enough money to reasonably cover their expenses without government assistance. That simply isn't the case with the min wage where it is now.   It is insane to put the people who are creating businesses that can't exist without unfair wages above the interests of people who don't have the advantages necessary (for whatever reason) to land a non-min wage job.   Maybe with the change to higher wages the gov *would* be forcing barely profitable businesses to become unprofitable, but if you are willing to say that then it would be fair to say that the current min wage is mandating everyone who works a minimum wage (full time!) job into literal poverty.   And how would a massive population that is suddenly flush with spending money NOT invigorate the economy? People spending money is good. That is why a big healthy middle class is so good for a country to have. Let people who can pay fair wages pay them, let everyone else come up with a business plan that doesn't hinge on unfair wages, ffs. Min wage has been raised before and actual studies have suggested time and time again that the benefit outweighs the short term loss of employment.   Tl;dr We cannot put needs of business owners ahead of needs of the people working for them. That creates a massively unstable &amp; unequal society.
My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building.  Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.
It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost.  If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother.  To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34.  If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue.  If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her.  If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120.  As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations.  If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems.  Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary.  See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info.
Startup costs are amazingly high. Running fiber to individual houses takes a lot of labor. Another problem you don't hear too much about is the legal side. I don't mean carriers fighting cities, etc. I'm a lawyer and there's a complex legal side when it comes to easements. An easement is a way to allow others access to your real property, or land. This is a complex subject, so I'll skim it a little. You can have an easement for a variety of reasons, one of them would be utilities. The gas, water and electric companies usually have an easement to fix/repair on a property. So if a storm knocks over a power pole, they can go onto the property to fix it without trespassing or needing special permission. You can also have an easement if, for example, you own a piece of land that is blocked by another piece of land from access to a road. You can have an easement granting you a driveway across the land that blocks you. There are many more examples and lots and lots of rules for easements, but you get the picture. When you set up a big fiber network, you are going to need easements to run it around and to be able to go onto properties to fix it. This is complex, takes a long time, money is often exchanged for easements, and they have to be recorded with the county. This takes a lot of time and money. That's not all. You usually have to go through permitting with the city and then you have to figure out where to run it. Can you use utility poles? Maybe the existing poles won't work and you'll have to install new ones. If you want to underground it, you're going to have to do all the permitting and easements, then you're going to have to look into shutting down streets to work, you're going to have to find all the underground sewer, water, gas, and other utility lines so you don't accidentally cut into them, there will be environmental regulations, and you're going to have to resurface/restore where you were digging. And I've probably left a few things out.