vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Keep in mind that a deaerator pump must be able to handle higher temperatures because they operate a 5 psi or 227o F. **What is the required capacity?** How much water you intend to pump is dependent upon the evaporation rate of the boiler the pump will service. A safe figure for an on-off application would be 2 times the evaporation rate of the boiler. With a modulating level control, a factor of 1.3 times the evaporation rate plus recirculation is recommended. **What is the desired discharge pressure?** When you pump directly into the boiler you will need to overcome the pressure in the boiler as well as any piping losses. You can chose the right pump by looking at the pump curves to determine which will accomplish this task. Should you have a modulating valve in the discharge line, the minimum you will need to add to the boiler operating pressure will be 20 to 25 lbs. Make sure that the pump can handle the pressure along with the flow rate needed. With an on-off level control the pumps should be designed for the relief valve pressure. **What is the NPSH or net positive suction head required?** This is the last piece of information that you will need. This is the minimum absolute pressure at the suction nozzle at which the pump can operate. To avoid pump cavitation, the NPSHA of the system must be greater than the NPSHR of the pump. In other words, the available NPSH must be higher than the required. We have always sized our deaerator stands to be two feet higher than the NPSH needed for the pump selection. Remember, the water level in the storage tank adds to the safety margin.
The core idea behind this statement is that there is always money for what you prioritize. If you try to use whatever is left over after your bills for savings, you probably won't save very much if anything. In practice, you decide on a fixed amount of money you will save out of each paycheck and put that aside in an investment or savings account, then pay your bills out of what is left.  Essentially it is a way to counteract the tendency of your lifestyle rising to exactly meet your income and leaving nothing for savings.
"You're getting paid by the job, not by the hour, so I don't see why you think the employer is obligated to pay you for the drive time.  The only way that might be true, as far as I can see, is if he were avoiding paying you minimum wage by structuring your employment this way.  It looks like to me you're over the minimum wage based on what you wrote.  At maximum ""unpaid"" drive time (59 min each way) and maximum length of job (4 hours as you stated it), gives your minimum hourly rate of $8.83/hr. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, so you're over that.  A quick search online suggests that NV does have a higher minimum at $8.25/hr under some conditions, but you're still over that too. The fact that you're required to pick-up the helpers and that you have a company car at home probably does mean that you're ""on the clock"" from the moment that you leave your house, but, again, you're not actually being paid by the clock.  As long as no other law is being broken (and it appears from your telling that there isn't), then the employer can set any policy for how to compute the compensation that he wants. Regarding taxes, the employer probably has no discretion there.  You're making what you're making, and the employer needs to tax it in total.  Since you're driving a company vehicle from home, I don't think that you're entitled to any reimbursement (vs. wages) that would not be taxed unless maybe you pay for gas yourself.  The gas money, if applicable, should be reimbursable as a business expense and that generally would not be taxed."
I suppose I should mention that you perhaps could get away with covering half her contribution (550 per month, on the face of it), as that should also ""balance"" out the monthly expenses. Even this much would be enough to put her back into the green on her covering her own costs. Of course, in this case you might want to take into account that while she's working 38,5 hours per week now, running a household is, I've heard, more closely equivalent to a 60-hour week, plus or minus being ""on call"" for a further 100 hours a week. Trying to calculate the absolute minimum payment on your part to match the investment of hours on hers is likely to be a bit more tricky than just matching the salable hours not worked, if you're set on income ratios and splitting costs ""as they are"". Also, you might want to rethink your criteria for sharing income completely or what makes certain divisions of costs ""unfair"". You mention one reason it would be unfair is that you have a ""more stressful job"" - well, your job may well be more stressful than her job now, but it is likely to be less so than raising a child (her new job). As for investment of time and energy for your education entitling you to a larger amount of pay, again, raising a child is likely to be a larger investment of time, money, and anxiety than your education, but her pay (or even share of the costs) doesn't seem to be balanced in response. I'm not gonna tell you what is fair, that's for you to work out, just suggesting you really think it through before deciding what would be fair or not."
Most Banks allow to make an international transfer. As the amounts is very small, there is no paperwork required. Have your dad walk into any Bank and request for a transfer. He should be knowing your Bank's SWIFT BIC, Name and Address and account number. Edit: Under the liberalised remittance scheme, any individual can transfer upto 1 million USD or eq. A CA certificate is required. Please get in touch with your bank in India for exact steps
"The answer comes down to what you expect the future tax rate to be. If that tax rate is the same (25℅ marginal here), then it is a wash. Yes you will pay more taxes when you pull the money out with a traditional, but it is the same fraction of the original contribution as when you pay the tax now to convert to Roth (all you did was invest uncle Sam's money well). So if you expect to pay higher tax rate on retirement then a ROTH could be beneficial. Also a ROTH does not have a required minimum distribution (but Congress can change that and it has been proposed). The argument for leaving the money in the traditional is that you expect a lower tax rate on retirement. Or you don't trust that a future Congress won't decide to add a ""nominal"" tax to ROTH distributions.  Now if there is a year where your tax rate is very low, then a partial conversion may well be worth it. Also if you your balance is insufficient for a good portfolio and future contributions will be to a ROTH due to income limits, then that would also be a very good reason to convert."
I always enjoy reading analyses like that, but something I've always wondered is whether they look at anything besides specifically the minimum wage.  Having worked a warehouse job, I was paid 50 cents above minimum wage. Now, that amount isn't arbitrary. It is 50 cents above minimum wage, and if minimum wage went up, so would that wage. I reckon there's a whole lot of people making _near_ minimum wage, and it seems rather incomplete to talk about only 1.8 million americans when that number could balloon just by including wages within a dollar of the minimum.  I'm not saying that is fact, I just wish the analysis wasn't so matter of fact, when it appears to me they've somehow overlooked a pretty import subset of people affected by the minimum wage.
"The title is misleading (shocker, right?). The exact wording in the cited study is ""in order to afford a modest two-bedroom rental home at the Fair Market Rent without spending more than 30% income on rent"".  HUD says:  &gt; The Fair Market Rent is HUD’s best estimate of what a household seeking a modest rental home in a short amount of time can expect to pay for rent and utilities in the current market.  So that's not the minimum available 2BR unit available. It's more like 50th percentile rent per zip code. Check rent.com for 2BR prices in Tennessee and Arkansas. They start in the lower $500s.  Also worth noting that if you work 40hr/week all year at minimum wage and claim 1 dependent then you don't owe a dime of Federal income tax."
I wonder if these two concepts are compatible or mutually exclusive:  * The minimum wage should provide a decent living standard above the poverty line * We should have as close to zero unemployment as possible  If those two statements are not compatible with each other, then I don't see how prohibiting eligible members of the workforce from an opportunity is at all desirable.  Yes, this would mean that some individuals would be earning less money than it would take to make a decent living, but those individuals know who they are -- we don't.  Which means that they have the ability to make choices concerning their lives that we shouldn't try to anticipate.  If minimum wage is not a decent wage for what they need, they need to adjust their situation to change that.  Minimum wage was never intended to be a livable wage, only the lowest amount you could pay someone.  I would argue that if someone has been stuck earning minimum wage for more than 2 years, they're doing something wrong.  Either they're not trying to advance, or they're not looking for a better job.
It is absolutley relevant.  The minimum wage acts as the base instead of zero and there are a huge amount of jobs that only pay minimum wage. If this idiotic concept were true than the since the minimum wage is the base there would be alot smaller number of minimum wage jobs.   Min wage does not deprive people of jobs. It reduces the amount of subsidized labor employers are able to employ.  It's biggly sad you don't understand human nature.
Yes they do. Here is the main page on minimum wage for the province of British Columbia.  This page lists exemptions from BC minimum wage laws, but there are none for working in a family business, or for being underage. Students are exempted only if they are on approved work study. Generally all provinces apply minimum wage laws to every employee.
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. Working at mcdonalds or a movie theater or a car wash aren't careers. You don't live off of unskilled hourly jobs. And you certainly don't have a family if you can't afford it, so no, minimum wage shouldn't afford to pay for a 2 bedroom.   It's unbelievable that you think someone should be able to support a family off of 40 hour weeks at mcdonalds. The rich lawyers and businessmen who make millions a year aren't working 40 hour weeks (granted their time is much more valuable so their 40 hour week probably would bring in a decent amount of money) but no they work 80+ hour weeks.
For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.
And I hope those minimum wage workers get their asses kicked for being scabs.  Crossing a picket line is VERY dangerous.   Any idiot to do that to get a minimum wage job is just acting stupid.  Here in Vancouver when our garbage men went on strike, a few souls were driving around collecting garbage for charity.  one day one of them got a call to go to a house, where a few large guys with baseball bats came out.  Needless to say he stopped.
I think your numbers are a little skewed towards urban areas.  Also, I don't think he was praising it, but rather saying that it's possible.  In many rural areas it's possible for a family to live off ~30k a year.  This amount is very possible in a two earner family where both are making minimum wage.  It's not glamorous or particularly great, but possible.    For example, there's many places where I live (rural Iowa) where rent is 200 a month or less.  You can find used cars for 500, and most people around here are handy enough to make a 500 dollar car run from point A to B.  Groceries are cheap here, and what's more many people buy food directly off the farm, which is even cheaper.  Utilities run about 80-100 a month, less if you have a well and septic.    Again, it's not a pretty lifestyle, and doesn't leave room for any rainy days, but at the same time how is an employee's lifestyle outside of work Wal-Mart's concern as long as they show up and do their work?
There are two reasons to do a reverse split.  Those partial shares will then be turned into cash and returned to the investors. For large institutional investors such as mutual funds or pension funds it results in only a small amount of cash because the fund has merged all the investors shares together. If the company is trying to meet the minimum price level of the exchange they have little choice. If they don't do the reverse split they will be delisted. If the goal is to reduce the number of investors they are using one of the methods of going private: A publicly held company may deregister its equity securities when they   are held by less than 300 shareholders of record or less than 500   shareholders of record, where the company does not have significant   assets. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the company may no   longer be required to file periodic reports with the SEC once the   number of shareholders of record drops below the above thresholds. A number of kinds of transactions can result in a company going   private, including:
"What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our ""Fast Answer"" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps ""equity indexed annuities"" is the more correct thing to search for and not ""insurance funds""?"
&gt; You can't hire on the basis of religion, period.  That is false.  It is a general rule, but there are lots of exceptions.  For example, when hiring a pastor or any job where your religion is required to perform the job.
This is a general rule of thumb that has worked for myself, as well as my Father, Brother and Sister. We all own separate businesses. Mine is B2B, my Father is a freelance architect, my Brother is a plumber, my Sister is a CPA. This is pretty much standard practice for what is required from a franchisee for a franchiser, as well.  It may not apply to all businesses, but that can be easily determined by anyone reviewing this list, unless they're complete idiots.  So, thank you, Mr. Obvious.
There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human.  While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs.  The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners.  As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices.   There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency.  In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win.  In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).
Payroll is a huge part of any companies costs. I said that it would of course have different consequences for subway than it does for Walmart, but more and more chains are finding that it is feasible to pay people fair wages and still be able to thrive. Starbucks is yet another example of this.  Businesses can't be held responsible to uphold social good on their own. Obviously, Subway has no real incentive to raise their wages. However, the government is responsible for policies that are good for the economy at large, and raising wages is one of the things they can do to stimulate an economy. It is true that typically it results in a small amount of job loss at first, but time and time again has shown net positives. Arguing against minimum wage or labor laws is just outright idiotic.
I don't believe there is such a process.  My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk.  If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it.  On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)
Something that is missing from the discussion is the actual market for the lottery ticket -- if a market existed for the tickets themselves, that would make this far more obvious, but since there isn't one; buying a single ticket gives different Expected Values, but since the ticket has a defined 'game' instance, a single ticket is a gamble. Playing the lottery in the long run could be part of a high risk investment portfolio. [edited for clarity]
&gt;Any business that can't generate enough cashflow to pay their employees a living wage is a shity business. Unemployment is down and minimum wage has gone up and yet there is still a record number of job openings.  Again, this is irrelevant. For an employee to be paid a certain wage, he must provide value that is greater than that wage. This is because if the employee doesn't, he is a net *cost* to the employer. A shitty business or the current economic status regarding unemployment / job openings doesn't disprove this.  Furthermore, the city of Seattle recently pursued a minimum wage increase to $15 which was studied by University of Washington. I encourage you to read the study.  https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Paper.pdf
Not all futures contracts are deliverable.  Some futures are specified as cash settlement only. In the case of deliverable contracts, part of the specification of a futures contract will be the delivery locations.  As per my answer to your previous question, please see the CME Rulebook for details of delivery points for the deliverable futures contracts traded on CME, CBOT, NYMEX, and COMEX. Assuming your agreement with your broker allows you to exercise your right to take delivery, your broker will facilitate your delivery.  You will be required to pay the contracted amount (your buy price x contract size x number of lots), as well as a delivery fee, insurance, and warehousing fees.  In addition, your broker may charge you a fee for facilitating the delivery. You will be required to continue to pay insurance and warehousing fees so long as your holding of the underlying commodity is held in the exchange's designated warehouse. If you wish to take delivery yourself by having the commodity removed from the warehouse and delivered to you personally, then you will need to arrange this delivery yourself. Warehouse/delivery points obviously vary according the contract being exercised. See the CME Rulebook for available delivery points.  Some exchanges are more accommodating than others. The practicality of taking delivery very much depends on your personal circumstances.  An investment bank taking delivery of treasury bonds would be more practical than an individual investor taking delivery of treasury bonds.  This is because the individual investor would be required to deliver the bonds to a brokerage in order to sell them.  In the case of non-financial futures deliveries, it is hard to imagine any circumstance where an individual taking delivery would be practical.
You didn't say why this person or his aunt would want to give you money. What service are you performing for them? Why would he want to give you money? Simple, practical tip: If somebody offers to give you money for nothing, or a large amount of money for a trivial amount of work, there's about a 99.99% chance that this is a scam. In real life, it is disappointingly rare for millionaires to pick random strangers and give them money for nothing.
"Can anyone provide more information on the ""guaranteed minimum agriculture"" mentioned in the article? A quick google search came up empty. Not sure if this is a relatively new concept the author is pitching or something that's been out there for some time."
No is and should be the standard answer. When your vacations have been planned ahead, why didn't the money saving start ? You should treat it as a punishment and forgo your vacation. But human beings aren't always that sensible so we go for plan B. Did you purchase your tickets/hotels or anything ? If yes, then check out the cancellation charges. Does the cancellation charges exceed the borrowing amount, then probably borrow and go on a vacation. But you should also consider, how the borrowed amount is to be paid. Is it within your means and your timeframe ? Does paying back the amount now, hamper your next vacation plans or other required spendings ?