vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I was able to attend an open discussion on Illinois pensions a few years back.  Dick Ingram, head of the Illinois Teacher's Retirement System spoke, as did a public employee union leader, Governor Quin's budget director and Christine Radogno who is a state lawmaker.  It was eye opening on many levels.  Some of the points that stick with me are:      * The state has never, over 30 years, followed standard practice and used an actuary to determine how much to put into the pension funds each year.  The legislators just pulled numbers out of the air each year.  As a result the pensions have never been properly funded.   The benefits are rich but, according to the people on this panel the main issue is this under funding.     * Some years the state declared a pension holiday and put nothing into the pension funds at all.  When this was brought up the largely union crowd started to turn on Radogno but she held up her hand, said she had voted against that and then commented that the unions all signed off on the pension holidays.  As one the crowd's heads turned to the union rep on the board.  He turned red and stared at the floor.     * 2/3 of the teacher's pension hole is for people already retired.  Changing benefits for current teachers will not help enough.     I asked Mr Ingram how much additional tax he would need to plug the hole in the system he manages.  He answered ""double"".  I asked for how long.  He said ""It doesn't work like that.  I'd need double the current amount forever.""  I came away much better informed but deeply saddened.  Like 69% of the people polled, I want these teachers and public employee to get their money.  I just don't see how it can happen."
I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.
"Maybe I am a bit jaded but I don't spend a lot of time trying to convince friends or family members to avoid MLM schemes even though I personally see them as scams. If they specifically ask for my advice I will walk them through the economics of the particular MLM that they are interested in. I have found that if you get to pushy in showing your friends or family members that their new ""business"" is actually a fraud they tend to get defensive and it becomes counter productive to continue trying to convince them of their mistake. You waste your time and anger your friend or family member. It's just not worth it. There are a few key questions I like to ask people about their MLM ""business"".  What does the business do? How do you make money? How do they make money? You would be amazed at the number of people that sign up and pay money to get into a business and they don't even have the slightest clue what the business actually does. Even fewer have an idea about how they can actually make money because the entire sales presentation focuses on what they could with all of the money they ""are going to make"". Why does this business need you? What do you bring to the table that the business doesn't already have (skills, contacts, money)? Most MLM's and especially the pyramid schemes focus more on recruiting people than selling products because they make their money on over priced initiation fees, and their products are mediocre at best."
"First, bear in mind that you're talking about having an average of ~£2000 saved up at any given time (if you spend all your stipend every quarter at a steady rate you'll start out with all of it and have none left at the end of the quarter), along with any long-term savings you manage to build up over time. In today's low-interest rate environment of ~1% interest rates, we're talking about approximately £20/year interest. So it's not worth a huge amount of effort to optimise this. You mentioned a ""bonus"", but looking at the Charter Savings website I don't actually see one listed for either the Cash ISA or the savings accounts you mention. In general, banks in the UK actually use bonus rates as a short-term measure to suck in new customers, and the bonuses typically expire after a while leaving you with a worse rate. Also, I don't think either of the rates you mention is guaranteed - they are both listed as ""variable"". In reality, I doubt they will go down too much more, given that the likely next move in UK interest rates is upwards. The typical main advantage of an ISA is its tax free nature. But from your question I assume you don't have any other income, so you won't need to pay tax on any interest you earn outside an ISA either. Also, given that your budget is quite tight and you expect to spend most or all of your stipend, there's no advantage to using an account where you can build up long-term tax-free savings. Even if you do have a few thousand pounds left over by the end of your PhD, you'll easily be able to put those into an ISA at that point given the annual limit of £20K. You're right not to want to take any risks with the money, and there aren't really any risk-free investments other than savings accounts available, at least on the timescales you're talking about. So overall I'd just go for the 1.26% return. Edit: as @marktristan's answer points out, you will probably be able to find a ""loss leader"" current account that actually offers more interest than a savings account.
"As per the age of your son you mentions i would suggest Yes, charge them an interest amount but lesser than the market rate. And give them a valid reason behind taking interest on given amount. The reason you might grab from below real incident happen with me at the time of Diwali last year. I am 26, and i am currently doing job and my salary is not so much that i can accomplish all my dreams of buying expensive Watch and many things. So i borrowed some strong amount from my mom. She gave me the amount but she asked me to pay interest of 5% and when i asked the reason behind demanding the interest she said something which was valuable things. She said me ""If i would not give you money then you will definitely ask money from some money lenders or your friends because now that watch is your first priority. And in that case you need to pay the higher interest rate to them. And in life there might be situation where we would not capable to help you in terms of financial. So this is the time you should learn to pay interest and responsibility of borrowing amount and repaying it on time with interest rate. This will help you also to learn a lesson and our money will be withing home I am not expert in parenting because i am still unmarried but i shared my point of view for your question. Thanks"
My household is well into the top 10% of income in the U.S. and I have absolutely no problem paying my fair share of taxes. I grew up poor and have been homeless. My wife wasn't much better off growing up the daughter of a truck driver. Now, I am senior management at a tech firm and she is a research scientist with a PhD in neuroscience.   If not for a little bit of luck we would be living very different lives. We need the United States to become a true meritocracy. There are too many people like myself and my wife - who had the talent to achieve really awesome lives for ourselves - that were never given the opportunity to go to college, let alone grad school.  Don't get me wrong. I took every opportunity that showed a glimmer of hope while I worked my ass off (at one point, I was working one full time job and another job that was at least 30 hours a week while holding down 12 to 15 credits of classes every semester), but I want everyone to have just the opportunity to be the best person they can be. Obviously, opportunity does not equate to success, but opportunity should be enough.   We are letting the next great business leaders, scientists, doctors, and engineers squander their potential in poverty and not only is this inexcusable on the micro level, it makes us weaker as a nation. I will *never* understand how my peers don't understand this.
I have many friends in the skilled trade fields that are not experiencing the shortage of workers.  They are experiencing a shortage of jobs.  I don't get where the idea of a shortage in manual labor is even coming from, because we really wish we were seeing that here.  I chose Computer Science because there was no shortage of need for CS majors, and when I graduated, my friends and I couldn't find CS jobs in our area for new graduates.  I moved onto IT purely through connections.  Some of my friends moved to other fields.  One became a stay at home dad because his wife was able to find better paying jobs in his area than he was.  We're sold these primrose path stories where you just need to fight for what others are offering, and you, too, can win!  But the reality just isn't fitting the narrative!  My friends fought and still fight!  To give up is to die!  But they are in no means doing well.  Maybe you don't have to see that.  Maybe you just get to hear the stories of the liberal art degrees that want better jobs.  Good.  Then your area is doing better than mine, or is more shielded.  I am still in America.  I work hard and have hard working friends.  Some, like me, are doing well.  Some are struggling despite doing their best.  The primrose path is an unfortunate lie.
Ones with backgrounds in working finance or econ, or worse I had two physics phd holders start in my cohort with me (so you have no chance to compete with that kind of math and programming experience), perfect gmats/gres, and great recommendations. It is very hard, but you can't win if you don't play I suppose. I would wager that the average number of applications to programs sent by applicants is around 50, so why not aim a few of those applications high and see if anything sticks. Computer language proficiency is a good thing to highlight, but won't win you any big awards. By the time you get out of your first year, every student should have proficiency in either Stata/R/Sas and have some python/perl/c# etc, depending on what area of research you go for. So you have a head start, but not for long. Your best shot to improve your chances are good recommendations from professors you know that are research active and big names in their sub-fields and in the finance field as a whole. Next up would be to have an active interest in a research area, and be able to discuss/write about WHY you want to research that area. Don't just think about it, go look up papers that do that sort of research and see what they do and how they do it. So that you will know the limitations of that sort of research. When I interview a prospective student and they say ""I am interested in international finance research"" or any other sort of general field, I know they haven't got a clue what they're interested in. Which puts them behind again."
I am a big fan of what we call inheritance tax. I think it is by far the fairest way we have of redistributing wealth. I don't believe a kid should be entitled to the parents ability to earn and that they should have to achieve that themselves.  The relationship is clearly complicated between welfare and employment. I believe the US employment issues are far more to do with the overall economy and less to do with benefits. The nations that do have high welfare and good employment, such as the scandie nations, have not been as effected by the global downturn for numerous  other reasons (Norway is essentially one giant oil hedge fund) and so are hard to compare. Any southern European nation can be an example of the opposite.
&gt;if the underlying economy hasn't been sufficiently capitalized, that will present juicy returns to investors.  That is not true in an era of excessive regulation at the Federal, State and local levels. Its also not true when the machinations of government have kept interest rates artificially low for thirty years, thereby causing a massive increase in household debt. Now we have a recession caused by the explosion of some of that debt. People are wary of going into more debt and they do not have the income to spend right now. In that circumstance, capital investment in productive ventures is riskier than normal. Recovery of investment is less certain and will certainly take longer.   Add to that the increasing debt of the US government. The debt can only grow so much before there is a shift in the economy and capital markets due to high inflation, capital controls or other direct government intervention in the economy. Since there is exactly ZERO possibility of addressing the US debt with the current batch of criminals in the Capitol and the White House, investors are very nervous. They need to be able to earn considerable profits to outweigh what they see as great risks.   If, on top of all that uncertainty you tell investors that if they manage to hit a home run and become profitable, that the government is going to take a bigger bite out of their profits..... well, many of them are going to say, Why bother? I can live on my savings.
I think this has more to do with bad parenting than low wages. Think about it, who are these people that can even answer this question. If I were asked it, I'd say that I have no idea because not working is not an option, but I make sure that I am always able to make a good income.  To me the only people who are able to do this are economic outpatient care recipients. Or people that can lie off of mommy and daddy's money. If I don;t work, my family and I go hungry, I lose my house, and everything fails. Put in this situation I'd take the low paying job and work up to the better paying one.  People need to suffer through a shitty job or two to develop character.
"&gt; Consumers don't want a conversation with minimum wage employees who don't give a damn  Correct. However, consumers *do* want to have a conversation with employees who do give a damn.   Some of the happiest customers I've had are the ones that I get to talk to one-on-one about the shoes they are interested in. Whether the customer knows what they are looking for, or if they need help finding the right product, they always appreciate talking to an employee who can confidently explain which features make a shoe the right fit for them.   If we don't have the right fit for the customer, we can actually try to find it online and purchase it right then and there for them. 99% of the responses to that are along the lines of ""Well I'd rather try it on first..."""
What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For ""out of the ordinary"" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a ""Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options"" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That ""Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options"" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price."
So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the ""fun"", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies.
Sounds a lot like my old boss. Except, I couldn't even get a PM methodology in place that numbered and tracked projects. Boss: Just email me weekly status reports of what you're working on. Me: How am I supposed to know what I am working on? Boss: ... --- Me: I came up with a PM system to track all of our work. Here's the link. Boss: I like this, I have some notes of things I'd like changed. 6 months later Boss: Where is your weekly status report? Me: When are you going to send me those notes? --- Boss: Send me an inventory of all of our systems and servers. Me: I can put it in a centralized, web-based system where we you can get real-time reports and export them to Excel. Boss: We'll do that later. 6 Months later Boss: Can you email me an updated version of the systems and servers inventory? Me: Where is it? Boss: You sent it to me. Me: So in email? Boss: I guess. Me:I can put it in a centralized, web-based system where we you can get real-time reports and export them to Excel. Boss: We'll do that later. --- Boss: This employee of yours is a real problem. Me: I agree, we've had many conversations about this. I've spoken to her several times, she's been written up. I think it's time to fire her. Boss: Let's wait till after the holidays I'm going on vacation then you are. Me: I think we need to move quickly. Boss: Let's wait Right after holidays employee falls, injures hip on the job. Takes 9 months off of work. Turns out it was a preexisting condition but HR tells us we have to take her back despite the act that she lied on her application. --- Went on short paternity leave. Boss was supposed to okay my employees time cards in the system in my absence. Same employee as above.
"I love how you're being downvoted even though you're providing a very basic answer that is easy to look up and see that you are correct, no the majority of people Linhares just listed aren't ""economists"" - but then again redditors vote based on they feel, irregardless of the facts. I also love how everyone now feels as though the financial crisis was easy to spot - I bet if we went back and asked them in 2007 they would have all foreseen it as well. Yes, a few exceptionally intelligent people (Roubini, Shiller, Grantham etc.) foresaw it, but then again thousands of intelligent people make forecasts on financial markets every day and the majority fail to outperform it. The survivor bias in action I guess."
This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life.  And that is the rub, they are choices.  They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them.  Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have).   In the end they will survive.  If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working.  They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks.  They might depend on family and friends.  There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food.   There is of course social security.  The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential.  They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with  predictable expenses.  Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation.  He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests.  His policy now is:  No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout.  You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.