vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The concept is more technically referred to as profit equals revenue minus cost, with cost being a floating variable dependent on (you guessed it) market forces. This gets a lot more complicated as you delve into specifics and as you seem to have a fairly untenable grasp on business operations as it is I'm worried it's futile to get too much more specific. &gt; That's exactly what's happened in the last 30 years and people like you protecting corporate greed is the reason why living wages has stagnated barely matching inflation while executive salaries have skyrocteted. I'm not certain what I did to 'protect corporate greed' in my comment besides buy a product I want at a cost I deemed fair, but ignoring that- the CEO pay vs employee pay argument has been debunked about a thousand times over by anyone who, again, understands math- it's division this time so be careful not to sprain something. A quick google search shows a figure reflecting Wal-Mart's CEO's total compensation at ~$22mm including stock options, salary, and bonuses. Another google search shows a total 2.1mm employees of the company. Quick division reflects that each employee could pocket about $10.5 a year if the firm outright did not pay their CEO by which that means they don't have a CEO, and thus do not have a functioning company. Congratulations, your logic just made 2 million people unemployed. &gt; You're either ignorant of the big picture, or a shill for a system that exploits the masses. Sorry- I'm new to this subreddit so I don't know if this is what passes for intelligent discussion around here; but that's a very narrow way of looking at the world. I could also say '[you're] either ignorant of business operations, or a shill for non-functioning economies'; but I'd like to believe an individual with the ability to use a computer is not that illiterate. I'm confused about your argument as a whole- are you saying I shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart or take an Uber because these companies don't pay their employees salaries you've deemed 'fair'? Can I get a list of places I'm allowed to buy things from, then?
"How many HVAC firms exist in your area?  If it's more than 1 or 2, it's unusual for them to be able to collude. If you feel underpaid, go interview.  You might find that you can get an offer for more $$$ elsewhere.  Don't reveal how much you currently make, if asked (this will distort the amount of the job offer).  At that point ask your current employer if they're willing to match.  If not, then move to the new company.    Some employees feel uncomfortable doing this.  You want to say, ""I like working here, but it doesn't make business sense for me to work for less than market rates.""  Also share your offer with your coworkers, at least the ones you like.  This will help equalize the market.  Employees can easily punish a stingy company with several departures."
How will your employer treat your pay and benefits status while you're on leave?   Disability income coverage and leave policies work in tandem to solve very different problems.  Disability income coverage covers your income, leave policies guarantee your status as an employee.   Typically, STD coverage requires an actual loss of income and will offset it's stated benefit for any income you're receiving.  In general you can't begin a STD claim after the 7 day waiting period and also draw income from vacation or sick time.  Also, typically STD will cover some percentage of your covered pay (sometimes including commission/bonus income) up to some weekly maximum. FLMA requires employers to allow certain amounts of time for certain types of leave.  FMLA is not necessarily an income replacement tool like STD coverage.   Contrary to your post it's my understanding that if sick and vacation time accrue in to a single PTO bucket your employer is prohibited from requiring employees to exhaust accrued time prior to beginning FMLA leave. In general, you're not missing anything because the point of FMLA is to guarantee your job and status as an employee from a benefits perspective. Benefits language from the Department of Labor Website A covered employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage, including family coverage, for an employee on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work.
ChelseaFC rocked number 2, so before I try to answer number 1, I'll just mention that academics generally ignored negative *real* interest rates, and have always admitted that negative *nominal* rates were perfectly possible.  There's nothing in his explanation that I think is controversial at this point though.  As for number 1, a drop in a company's share price affects the company's ability to raise cash in the present and future.  In a closely related issue, that drop can affect the company's ability to compensate its employees through options and restricted stock grants.  In the long run (and I suspect you already know this), and drop in the share price affects the shareholders' wealth, and can lead them to demand that changes be made to be firm's operations (usually, changes made to who's running the firm).  If a firm doesn't need more financing, and it doesn't pay any employees with stock or derivatives on its stock, then changes to its stock price won't affect the firm's operations in the slightest.  Naturally, this assuming that the change in stock prices isn't indicative of changes to the economy, but that's a causal relationship in the other direction (the stock price reflects changes in operations, not the other way around).
I think traffic and public transit is still a government problem. It's just that Microsoft decided to offer perks to their employees. Just because I start a carpool with some other parents doesn't mean I'm suddenly responsible for fixing the transmission on the school bus.
"&gt; USPS is a private company entirely.   That's a bit of a myth as I understand it. It's an ""independent establishment"" unlike any other part of the of the government, but it still operates under the federal umbrella. Congress controls what products and services it can offer, postal workers are federal employees, and it's not subjected to antitrust laws ([per SCOTUS decision](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/736/) that's based on it still being a government organization)."
Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not saying it's a bad tool.  I'd personally use it, not exclusively or taken as gospel, but I'd use it.   &gt;  I am not comfortable moving to the big city just yet  This is what I'm saying.  There are other factors if you're using glass door to validate feelings of being underpaid.     By the way, if this is what you want then make the leap now. It'll never get easier.  The longer you stay in an area the more roots you put down and the more your current company will take you for granted.   &gt; Anyway, Glassdoor does effect smaller businesses that have no benefits, and just a non-standardized work cultures.   I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If a business isn't competative then there is likely a reason.  Either they can't be or they don't feel like they need to be.  Prospective employees that weren't hand-picked wouldn't change that.  Former employees can be drowned out with astroturfing.  It's much cheaper and easier.
As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will.
This story will end up being a case study at business schools.  It isn't often that non-union workers, most of whom don't get paid much, bring a company to its knees over a change at the top like this.  This is a 71 store chain.  This CEO is a multi millionaire.  Customers and employees risked their jobs and paid more for groceries elsewhere just to get this guy back in charge.  That's a relationship between management, employees, and customers that is extremely rare.
&gt; Michael Preiss was happy to escape the corporate grind after being laid off by International Business Machines Corp. in 2001. He became a contractor, earning more than $100,000 a year from steady assignments helping companies figure out how to do things faster and cheaper. &gt;  That work eventually dried up. The past decade has been a revolving door of outsourced jobs for shrinking pay, fear that any day at a company could be his last, and reminders that full-time employees live in a different world, even though they often sit at the next desk. Mr. Preiss says one manager reprimanded him because co-workers complained that he laughed too loudly.       An experienced tech contractor that does process reengineering who earns less than $50 per hour?  Something doesn't add up.      Many industries have contractors who are taken advantage of.   In tech, contractors are often making 50-100% MORE than employees.  It is highly lucrative, a huge portion are contractors by choice (I am yet to work at a firm that didn't try to offer a lowball permanent position).
"I don't understand the worker mentality of accepting to be part of pension plans. The downside risk to you is ridiculously high -- you're basically making an investment that the next 30 years of corporate management and the company as a whole are going to be good. Pension plans are among the first to go.. employees that retired 20-30 years ago add no current value to the company, unless you consider that current employees are motivated by the idea of a pension or working for a company that ""takes care"" of its employees.  Also, part of the reason pension funds are blowing up is that the risk-free return rate is less than 1%. I don't know who to blame or thank for that, but with government bonds now trading at negative yields in real and sometimes even absolute terms (see: Swiss yields), what else are you supposed to do?"
&gt; Because unions have destroyed nearly every major industry where they had a natural tendency to form (large scale capital intensive manufacturing operations where large numbers of workers were concentrated in one place). This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. This is just a way for a business to deflect criticism when they want to outsource, killing US jobs just to increase their net income. Unions make concessions when they have to. &gt; The force of government prevents companies from refusing to collectively bargain with a labor union. Threat of violence? Violent strikes? This is a straw-man if I've ever seen one. Who is threatening violence here? This existed before government laws were created that made legal threats on behalf of employees that want to keep unionized employees employed and force companies to collectively bargain with a union. Now of course the strikers themselves are not directly threatening violence, since they are backed by the force of government. This is just showing a tremendous amount of ignorance regarding the way things actually happen. &gt; Collectively bargaining doesn't benefit workers in general. It benefits in the short-term, those workers who are employed and unionized, at the expense of long-term wage growth and employment opportunities for the unemployed and non-unionized employees. I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford. I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes."
Consistent with the plateauing in Facebook growth. But let's also remember that Zynga was the company whose CEO was lionized in some quarters for screwing his own employees on options, benefits, pay and job security. You earn a reputation for treating your people badly, they will go elsewhere and you will run out of ideas.
"First of all, one thing that is very important: Match is always better than no match. So, you should definitely use that match on your HSA if you've already maxed out the company match on your 401(k). In fact, for most people there won't be much reason to invest in your 401(k) above the company match at all. If, for example, your company matches only up to 5%, and you want to invest 15% of income into retirement, you ought to open an IRA instead (Roth or standard depending on your situation) and put the extra 10% in there. Beyond that, you're right, HSA's (the accounts themselves) have all the benefits of a 401(k). I wouldn't invest there for retirement instead an IRA, though. There is just no reason. The only built-in downside of an HSA is the HDHP attachment, which may be undesirable to some employees or in certain situations. If you want to get down to raw dollar figures and your company is offering both a standard health plan and a HDHP+HSA, the calculation will be dependent on the premiums and benefits of each and your projected costs of your health care (which is always a crystal ball estimation anyway). Those costs and benefits can vary wildly, from a completely obvious choice on either the HDHP or standard plan, or pretty much a wash where you decide based on your comfort level with a high deductible. To illustrate... Standard plan: Your company might offer a standard plan that costs you $100 out of pocket for an individual. That means you pay a minimum of $1200 a year for health care. Most plans will have copays (a flat amount like $15 you pay for standard doctor consultations), a deductible (you pay 100% of fees up to this, co-pays don't count), a percentage you pay beyond the deductible (20% is typical), and a maximum (like $1000 per individual per year - beyond this, up to a ""lifetime"" maximum benefit of like $2 million, you won't be charged anything).
Working many hours is not uncommon. When I worked at Fidelity the first half of the month was about 40+, by the second half of the month it was easily 50+.  Working on Saturdays or holidays was not uncommon, it was a surprise if you were NOT there.  After Fidelity I worked at the AMA for some time and their hours were very structured.  I never worked a weekend while there and things were very smooth.  So from my personal experience it depends on what company you are working at.  Some are fast paced and demand a lot of your time, others are very structured.  If you're not married go for the busy job and get as much experience as you can.  If along the way you have a family find a job that can offer better structure.  When you start earning a decent salary you can easily afford a dog walker, maid, etc. and you manage to balance out things pretty well.  Its weird things just fall into place like that.  *shrug*
Honesty only survives with a single man's capital. When the capital belongs to more than 1 person, the shareholders demand profits, not good vibes.  Every lost opportunity to extract a dollar is a dollar lost. That's what shareholders think, and that's why employees get paid like shit, no matter how well a company does.
I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA
Strictly from an ROI perspective, this is likely very dependent on your field.  Some masters degrees (quant finance, business, engineering) will be well worth the debt, since a degree from the right university will yield a respectable ROI, whereas other degrees/fields (philosophy, fine arts, etc) will be basically a waste of money. Regardless of the field you can input your information into an ROI calculator and see what you get.  I typically err on the side of using the lowest average reported salary for the degree programs you're considering (self reported salary data is notoriously inflated).
I would turn down a 20% raise in salary without thinking, if they would offer that I can have a 4 day work week. I even take a 10% cut for this!
If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. &gt;I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes. A general effect happens gradually over a course of decades, and happens in the aggregate, not in every case. It will not be apparent in the short-run, and will not be manifested in every case. In other words, that unionization did not result in immediate bankruptcy of your industry does not prove that unionization does not have a negative effect over the average long term performance of industries and average long term increase in wages.
It's not a 60% raise. He made 60% more than the previous year. There's lots of things that could account for that. One of them is an annual bonus that was larger than his previous annual bonus - the calculation of that bonus was likely negotiated as part of his contract. A large chunk of the gains seems to be between that and stock/option awards. Often stock/option vest differently in the first year than remaining years, and the value changes over time as the stock market moves. If you have options granted with a strike price set based on the closing price of stock the day you start, and you cash them out as you get them, after a year if it's gone up 5% you make a bit. After the second year if it's gone up 10%, you doubled your income from that source even though you didn't receive any more options that year. His salary raise doesn't seem out of line. I've gotten larger raises in my career. Now... suppose all of his compensation was spread out evenly across all of the employees. CAT has a bit over 100K employees. His total compensation was $16M 16M / 100K = $160. You could give every employee $160/yr more for the cost of the CEO's entire compensation package. That comes out at 7-8 cents/hour. If you only do it with his raise and not the one time bonuses and returns from stock/option grants well... $3/employee/yr. The best way to invest in people is to offer training to help them move to higher value jobs. Things like tuition reimbursement programs based on maintaining good performance in classes are solid benefits to offer. Or even job training to those who show aptitude for different classes of work. Maybe some merit based bonus structure - people who come up with good ideas for cutting costs, improving efficiency, etc and work to see them implemented qualify for some sort of bonus based on a percentage of the value of that change. The bigger problem with those types of programs is that collective bargaining agreements tend to forbid any sort of merit based pay.
Sacrifices the union made to keep a health plan for PART TIME EMPLOYEES. This author is a self righteous fucking blowhard. Try working for minimum wage, 40 hours a week with no benefits like millions of others you prick.
That's your assumption, but the details are there are different tiers of liability depending on the level of employees you have. Have 5,000+ you must pay this increased level of medical insurance or other liabilities.   So if he has 7,000 employees and increased liabilities would happen at 5,000+ ---- sounds like there's a $$ incentive to decrease to 4,999.   That's not emotion, that's just business.  The irony would be if he sold to a Chinese company, that cuts employee benefits and wages and sends most of the profit home while employing tax shelters to yield as little as possible in taxes.
"After we fired a whole slew of higher paid employees with good benefits we waited. Then we re-hired a whole bunch more again at lower pay and bad benefits.   See! We made 800 jobs by ""restructuring"" and that's big news!  Seriously though, they've done this a few times over in Michigan already. Not sure why it's news now."
One of the biggest benefits of online casinos are the great bonuses for new players they offer. Every hall is ready to offer all sorts of attractive conditions for its new clients. malaysia best slot game allows players to try more halls on the internet and take advantage of unique promotions. On our Casino Bonuses page you can find a list of online casinos we recommend, the size and type of bonuses offered, and the conditions for making and downloading them.
&gt;But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans,  Which means the insurance bought by employees must get a whole lot cheaper, I guess, as there would be direct competition and lots of shopping around.  &gt;, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up  So the employers suddenly don't need to compete on the employee marketplace? I mean in times with high unemployment not, but this is orthogonal to this - in times with high unemployment they don't need to compete with benefits either, I guess?  Although in reality I agree with you, let me offer a different but supporting perspective: it is much easier to haggle a salary than to haggle anything else. I've always lived in European countries with different amounts of government-mandated paid holidays and I have never ever heard of a person who succesfully haggled a week of extra holiday in his package, or a VIP-level additional private health insurance above the basic social-security-paid one (the one that gets people more comfortable hospital rooms and better hospital food etc. - if people buy it here, they always buy it privately, not by the employer),  or really anything but money. The only extra I ever heard about is the private usage of a company car, and even that is rare, and that has more to do with easier accounting than anything else. Sometimes people get lunch tickets, but that is usually because they are tax-free.  I don't know why, but it seems to be the general law: either the government mandates some non-monetary benefit, or the employer decides to provide it because of competition, but people privately can pretty much never haggle for it, not even when they are badly needed. Strange.  A possible explanation: business are used to buying stuff with a simple monetary price. As a buyer, you have no other responsibilities than to pay. For example a programming company will not demand that the client gives them a detailed specification, they will gladly write one, for a price. So if anyone comes and tries to sell something, and wants anything else but money, it gets weird. And I figure it is the same for employees.