vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Depending on who you trust, the Social Security fund should still be liquid for another 40 to 70 years or so, which should cover the life expectancy of most boomers.  As for what happens after that, well there doesn't seem to be a plan for that yet. A plan would require making some unpopular choices. Politicians would be forced to do something with negative political ramifications in the short term to offset a problem that isn't going to explode until long after they have left office and shuffled off this mortal coil. For most it just isn't worth the political fallout.  What is likely to happen? The same thing that is happening now. The Government is no stranger to spending money it doesn't have, the National deficit and debt prove that convincingly. Of course we are now approaching debt levels we haven't seen since WWII from the combined efforts of two concurrent wars and bailing out every industry that can afford to hire a lobbyist, and overuse of the old politician's trick of buying votes by spending people's own money on them and pretending to be magnanimous.  Something is going to have to give. My best guess is that the following will happen in this order: 1) Increase then eliminate the caps on how much income you have to pay SS taxes on. 2) Raise the age when you can start collecting SS checks. 3) stop paying people SS checks if they exceed a certain income at retirement age. 4) stop paying people SS checks if they exceed a certain net worth. 5) Reduce the amount people get in SS checks.   Of course another baby boom or drastically increasing the amount of legal immigration would also stave off the problem for a while...
Just look at GNP for manufacturing, and then compare population sizes.  If you've got 4x the people and you're only producing slightly more than another country in finished goods, what does that say about your manufacturing sector?  Is it a world beater, or an also ran?    Also, of course, most of the margin for those products is realized post manufacture.  Selling shit to consumers is hard.    Also consider things like this: &gt;This is partly because a large share of Chinese production costs consists of imports from other countries. Xing and Detert (2010) demonstrate this by examining the production costs of an iPhone. In 2009, it cost about $179 in China to produce an iPhone, which sold in the United States for about $500. Thus, $179 of the U.S. retail cost consisted of Chinese imported content. However, only **$6.50** was actually due to assembly costs in China. The other $172.50 reflected costs of parts produced in other countries, including **$10.75** for parts made in the United States.  http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-25.html  The US adds more value to the manufacturing process of an iPhone (forgetting design entirely) than the country that ends up with the credit for its manufacture.
I have read this at least a dozen times, and watched several documentaries on it, but this is the clearest explanation yet. Thank you.  I had not really considered the possibility that the fed is not the evil monster it's usually frame as before. Now I'm not sure how bad it is due to these conflicting viewpoints. The worst case I have heard against it (repeatedly) is that it's a privately owned corporation. And that it's for-profit. What is that about?
What?!  According to that article's description, ANYONE can take advantage of the Post Office.  But the article tries to make it look like Amazon is the only one making off like bandits from it!  What the one-sided argument are you trying to feed me here?  That's still free market.  I think you should look for the flaws in the articles before you accept their narrative.  Every article has flaws.  If you know what they are, you can shore them up with other proof that backs up the weaknesses, or you can dismiss the article as worthless.  In the case of this article, I'm afraid I must dismiss it as worthless.  It is selling a narrative that the Post Office is catering to Amazon, when it is clear that Amazon is simply abusing the Post Office the same way any company can, and probably does.
That might be what President Trump claimed (it isn't, he never said $100B *per year*), but [Slate says that it would've been a minimum of $6 billion by 2020](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/06/02/president_trump_falsely_claims_the_u_s_spends_billions_and_billions_and.html).    The US gives out about [$42B per year in foreign aid](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/), so $6B over 3 years to help poorer countries meet their emmision cutting targets doesn't seem to be something that would break the budget.
&gt; The company dismissed free speech concerns. “Not only is there no First Amendment concern, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye to criminal conduct because other countries may take oppressive steps in response is an affront to the very fabric of this nation.”  Other countries? We're concerned about OUR country!
I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes. I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what. People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say ""realized capital gain less taxes"" on your summary document. There should be no ""depreciation"" or ""cost basis"" or anything even vaguely like that. Even ""assets"" and ""liabilities"" are too jargonish. ""Possessions"" and ""debts"" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish.
&gt;So what you're saying is if the janitor got a degree in a lesser paying field, he should be entitled to that 100k as a janitor. Ok.   Nope. I did not say that. How you got that  from what I said is beyond understanding. Perhaps  you should really learn  basic logic. Or you are just a fucking asshole who  repeatedly ignores what has been said and pretends something else was said. Again because your small brain cannot comprehend this a janitor is not entitled to a  better pay because special skills are not required to do his job and anyone can do it. Doesn't matter how many degrees the janitor has if he is not using those skills.    &gt;Just because you went to college doesn't mean your job takes more skill, or is harder.  True. Finally you made a true statement. Here would you like a gold star and a sticker? Sadly for you noone has said that just because you went to college your job requires more skills or is harder. Alas the janitor job requires neither skill nor knowledge and is therefore going to remain a lower class job that is badly paid (compared to the area's cost of living).  &gt;My ex also has a brother who didn't go to college and got a bomb ass job at EA games as a programmer. I guess he deserves minimum wage.   You are beyond retarded. There are other ways to get skills besides college. Your ex's brother acquired them, got a job that uses them and is getting a salary better than your no special skills needed janitor.
Did you read the second paragraph?  **The program was designed to loot the defeated Germany's intellectual assets and impede its ability to compete in the postwar political and economic spheres while giving a boost to the nations conducting it. Though unacknowledged at the time, the T-Force mission also included preventing advanced Nazi technology from falling into the hands of the Soviet Union—destroying whatever could not be seized and hauled away before Soviet troops arrived. As such, T-Force activities can be seen as the beginning of the Cold War. Operations in Germany were often heavy-handed, and sometimes amounted to kidnapping. Publicly available information on the unit's activities remains scarce.**
I would like to see what they propose as far as taxing dividends, capital gains, inheritance and other sources of financial gain that the wealthy seem to rely on far more than this 'income' thing. Income is for us hoi polloi.
For whom? Nigerians and the people they work for? Sure. Current workers in the industrialized countries? Not so much. Why doesn't anybody realize that the world economy is a zero sum game now? There's no more growth to be had since energy and minerals are tapped out, Not much anyway.
"This is an easy question - The US government has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it **will** bail out the ""established"" auto industry.   Tesla is very very cool, and may well bury the rest of the auto industry eventually, but they're not viewed as ""too big to fail"".   Thus, Ford's bonds, even if *practically* ""junk"", are essentially backed by US Treasury; that's a pretty good deal, if you're looking for ultra low risk."
Do you have the raw data?  Do you know how they selected the sample?  Did they discover perfect random?  I would guess not. So that probably would mean 100 isnt correct in this context.  I'm non-partisan. I would also just ask, how did that election turn out again with the numerous polls and other research of 1000+, repeatedly at different times over a campaign that seemed to have been like 2+ years long?  Further I dont even know why we are talking about a study of 100 when theres glassdoor with more than 10,000 reviews though it isnt normalized or in an actual study format. The thing to note is that if you compare the types of employees to another tech company like lets say Google/Alphabet or Facebook you have a different distribution in the type of people recruited and that might effect their experience. Amazon does a lot of retail, support and call centers as compared to a lot of engineers with a more educated background. Both are people but theres definitely a difference in the type of person as well as their temperament you get if you go to lets say an urban wal-mart as compared to an Alphabet or Facebook engineer.
What you say about the history of clothing is true... but we're not going backwards. Modern society is not going back to having one or two outfits per person, made with local/regionally-produced cloth. What we need, in fact, is MORE cotton sourced from poor countries like Burkina/Cote d'Ivoire/Cameroon/Mali/wherever, and much less tariff protection for inefficient, expensive cotton made in rich countries (ex. USA). That would benefit Western consumers AND developing-country producers.
What's your basis? If you have just made a 50% gain, maybe you should cash out a portion and hold the rest. Don't be greedy, but don't pass up an opportunity either.
&gt;Or....maybe rich people would not hoard all of the property  That would only happen if real-estate stopped being a reliable long term investment.  A tax would only burden the not-so ultra wealthy.. and real estate companies trading properties would raise the costs of doing transactions to cover the cost of property taxes
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/76kfob/comment/dogaxph?st=J8UIVZS9&amp;sh=dc05f8f9  Read the entire argument with me and that guy, he really thinks prices won’t increase if tipping is eliminated. He even says “it is impossible to guess” that prices would increase.  There are a ton of people in this thread who are oblivious to the obvious increase in price that would happen if tipping stopped, and most of those comments are heavily upvoted.
The behaviour described in this article was fraud and deception to work around regulations that would have kept the bubble from overinflating. If the housing bubble had stopped when they ran out of genuine loan prospects it would have been a lot less worse when it popped.
How high is high? In countries that suffered hyperinflation such as the Weimar Republic around 1923 and Zimbabwe around the late 1990s this certainly did happen on a daily basis. E.g. One boy, who was sent to buy two bread buns, stopped to play football and by the time he got to the shop, the price had gone up, so he could only afford to buy one. or One father set out for Berlin to buy a pair of shoes. When he got there, he could only afford a cup of coffee and the bus fare home. or At the height of the country's economic crisis that year, prices were rising at least twice day, with Zimbabweans forced to carry cash around in plastic bags just to buy basic items.
"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline?  Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called ""valuation"", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting."
Free trade agreements are not about trade. Thats just their pretext. They use free trade agreements to get all sorts of things that legislators would never vote for.   Now I hear the FTAs are putting the US taxpayer into a state of potential liability for a lot of financial hijinks in other countries, and - if they put exporting energy into [TTIP](http://www.ttip2014.eu), also making us liable if we decide to stop [the flow of energy, natural gas, overseas](http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Analysis_of_EU_Energy_Proposal_TTIP.pdf) for many wholly legitimate reasons - we would be asked to pay huge amounts if we stopped it, say, because it was killing jobs here having energy cost twice or three times as much. thats not a good reason, just like not being able to affording healthcare for your country under the insurance system is [not a good enough reason](http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3206.pdf) to switch to single payer without running afoul of an FTA once its been signed.
If they are truly long term investments I would not put a stop loss on them. The recent market dive related to the Brexit vote is a prime example of why not to have one. That was a brief dive that may have stopped you out of any or all of your positions and it was quite short lived. You would likely have bought your positions back (or new positions entirely) and run the risk of experiencing a loss over what turned out to be a non event. That said, I would recommend evaluating your positions periodically to see if they still make sense and are performing the way you want.
if more people wanted to short mortgages, the price of insurance on them would have gone up, and investors would have stopped wanting to buy them, which would cause interest rates on homes to go up, reducing the number of people who can buy homes out of their price range- which was a fundamental cause of the crisis
"&gt; Is a guy stabing a Muslim because he thinks he defends his country a terror attack ? What about a Muslim stabing a guy because he thinks they destroy his culture ? To me both are acts of terror ! Well, the only question is about ""cause and effect"" and quantity. Do you think a rightwing would attack Muslims if they did not attack westerners? Do you think rightwing attacks are more than Muslim attacks? Are they even 1% of all attacks and harm? **What would happen if Muslims would never get attacked in Germany, even if they attack Germans?** (Check history books for the answer.) &gt; E.g. i have nothing against refugees BUT they making terrorist attacks rape our women and are highly unhygienic by shitting in the streets"" That is a 1a grade hate speech and pretty much your opinion as far as understood you. Who said I have nothing against refugees? Of course I am against accepting ""refugees"": hardly any of the ""refugees"" are from the Syrian war. Almost all of them are economic migrants from mostly countries which are not Syria. Accepting refugees hurt them more than help, because instead of trying to fight their oppressors or try to improve their situation in their location, they take the easy choice of running away and making the situation even worst in their homeland. You never heard about foreign aid? You need to take people into your country instead of aiding them in their country? Note: if tomorrow, a catastrophe happens in Chile or Italy or Kenya, I will be glad to take as many of them into Germany because, for sure, they will try and succeed to integrate into the German society, customs and way of life. No chance they will start terror attacks against Germans and Sharia courts. &gt; Please try to see that such things are damaging to the society and lead to mobs with pitchforks trying to restore ""order"". Prevention is the best medicine! Why, to begin with, cause damage to society and many problems by accepting ill-fit immigrants? **You are the one that is not open minded!** You see all the problems, caused only by refugees, and you want more refugees.
Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt?  The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient.   If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways.
"There's the question whether knowledge about unannounced products is actually ""material"" if everyone (the public) knows that something new will be released. If you work at Apple on the development of the iPhone 8, that's not material. If you worked at Apple and you knew that they stopped developing new phones, that would be very, very, very material information.  The important thing as far as the stock market is concerned is what sales look like, and that's not something you know as a product developer."
If you stopped blaming everyone else perhaps you'd be less angry and sharp-tongued. The world is not full of morons fucking everything up. What it is full of is people who make mistakes and the uninformed. If you can bypass your narcissism, you'll see the root of the problem - why these things occur. Then you can fix them instead of complaining about them.
"So what is the implication of ""creating"" 12 loddars like that?  If enough loddars are created in such a way (basically as IOUs for IOUs, if I'm interpreting this correctly), will we have inflation?  What keeps this in check?  Is it credibility of whoever issues the promise for loddars?  And when those loddars are destroyed -- because of the wildfire or whatever -- is the individual that is ""owed"" them just screwed?  What is an example of this happening in the real world?  Would be if a company makes a promise of some payment, and it turns out that it can't be fulfilled?  That company would still ""owe"" that money to someone, right?  Sorry for the string of questions tacked on to your great post, but I feel as though you made a very illuminating point and then just stopped.  Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this."
When has a terrorist EVER had trouble getting onto a plane?  The TSA screening is a joke, and actual suspected terrorists don't go on the no fly list, since that would alert them that they are under surveillance.  All airplane terror plots that have been stopped in recent times have been stopped by other passengers on the airplane.  If I was able to go from the front door, checking my luggage, going through security, through the gate, and onto my plane without seeing a single airline employee or TSA thug, I would feel significantly safer.  Hell, put me on a drone with no human pilot, and have vending machines rather than flight attendants.  Also, while I'm making demands, airplanes should have bunk beds instead of seats, and they should gas the cabin on long flights.
There are two aspects to healthcare-- firstly, if you are a citizen in a developed country there are significant financial benefits (In the US there is also medicare/medicaid but I don't know how those work so I'm not going to talk about that) to staying in-country when you retire, even if the health care would be more expensive- it's the government that's paying! Secondly, health care in low-cost countries tends to either be cheap and poor quality (and by poor quality I mean really, really scary!) or expensive and almost as good as a developed country. Again, high-quality hospitals in low-cost countries may still save you money, but the nurses may not speak good English and the doctors may not have a great bed-side manner. In many low-cost countries, nobody calls the police because they know the cops don't care, or will never solve the problem (i.e. they will arrive hours or days after it's too late), or the cops may even be 'in on it'. So basically you try to protect yourself from the inevitable robbery,swindle,extortion,hold-up,you-name-it but sooner or later something bad will happen. With security guards and being younger, it's less of an issue, but when you're elderly, especially if you look foreign and rich, it's definitely more dangerous. Many of my friends from low-income countries try to emigrate for this reason (and/or in combination with the political climate, which is largely corrupt and full of problems). So, if you're old, why risk it? Stay somewhere safe.
"&gt;Sorry, but I have yet seen any of his ""exploit"" clearly hurt the consumer  Licensing ""one-click"" and affliate programs result in other companies unable to provide the same to their customers at competitive prices, thus clearly hurting the consumers. Maybe not *their* consumers, but certainly everyone else's.  Now if he said this on the same day he stopped the licensing fees, I would agree with you."
What perpetrators, the neckbeards on reddit?  They don't need to - if transacting in it were declared illegal, it would become useless.  It only has utility if it can be used to buy things or exchanged for real money.  It may retain some niche value, like gold coins in WoW, or in failed 3rd world countries, but real corporations and banks in the developed world would be out.
Edited because my first response was incoherent. The US and Western Europe have always had solid food and water supplies that helped them grow. The same can't be said for countries like Zimbabwe and other mineral rich countries. Diamonds and lithium and other similar commodities are only as valuable as they are because we have had the luck to grow our economy and technology to the point where we have the time/money to look into spending like that.   I find it hard to believe that we would be making smartphones if we didn't have the basic resources first.
The number of days you could sustain your current lifestyle if you stopped working for money today