vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Okay, I'll amend my complaint: Because we decided to have a fucking stupidly complicated system of social safety nets.  Seriously, though.  Those employees are better off with shit pay, but still eligible for government benefits than being paid a bit better and not getting any benefits.  As soon as people start to get somewhat better pay, they lose benefits of hundreds of dollars/month, and generally lose access to health insurance.  I'm not saying support Wal-Mart, I'm saying we've got a lot of work to do to fix our government programs and regulatory frameworks and tax code in pretty fundamental ways.
&gt; Pensions should be held in an arms length trust independent trust and the company should have no access to it.  This is, at least theoretically, the situation in the United States.  There are plenty of restrictions as how trust assets are protected from the company itself.  &gt; All workers should be paid before executives or creditors see dime one.  All employees in the United States, that have benefits on an underfunded pension plan are protected by the PBGC.  It is 'pension insurance', and will make up the difference in any participant's pension.  It doesn't provide preferential payments to 'executives last', but it does cap payments at a certain amount - it's about $60k/year in 2017.  &gt; This is why unions need to get their shit together and break these laws for the rich, by the rich.  Unions take money away from workers, too, in the form of dues.  They also have the capability of running companies into the ground.  GM and Hostess are two examples that got plenty of press.  Unions are important, don't get me wrong.  But there is no 'rich' here to rob.  This company has been going downhill for 30 years, and they are downright terrible.    &gt; When one of these execs walks away with millions of worker's earnings in their pockets  US perspective:  If this happens, it's because they deferred their own salary.  They took a pay cut, basically lending their money to the company.  These plans aren't protected under bankruptcy, so if the company fails, they lose the vast majority of their pension.  There is no protest needed.  The laws are just fine in this particular case.  &gt; If you let them steal your lunch money without a black eye you'll starve.   There really isn't any lunch money stolen here.  Just a terrible company with short-sighted management, who missed the boat on technological improvements 25 years ago.
"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k).  http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php ""To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility requirements: The presence of self employment activity. The absence of full-time employees."" And from the IRS itself (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf)"
&gt;The point is, the worker deserve a share of those profits. It is their work that has made them - in addition to the work of the CEO  Uh, no. The main purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholders' wealth. Neither the workers, nor the CEO *deserve* anything from the profits, their pay has already been deducted as an expense. Profit is the residual income that is left to distribute to shareholders (you know, the guys who are risking everything. i.e. they are last to receive anything, if left, when a company goes bankrupt) as a dividend, or to reinvest in the company.   If salaries are inadequately low, that is a whole different problem. Increase them, and have more adequate profit levels *next year*. But let's not get confused as to who deserves what.  Personally, I find both Cat's remuneration's policy and the union's demands disgusting. So don't take this the wrong way. CEO is clearly overpaid already, but they did not just decide to give him a raise or something. Pay for performance measures are probably already in his contract. Maybe next time when that contract is renegotiated the remuneration board will propose more normal terms. The union on the other hand, with its unreasonable demands about seniority, and god knows what else, is likely to lead to many cut-backs (at the new terms), and unlikely, but possible, closure of the plant, leading to even more unemployment.
Obama has used the argument ""you didn't build that"" to say you benefited from other people's taxes to get where you are. But guess what? Government existed just fine without increased taxes. It's only now that they want to maintain and will increase the level of spending they need more revenues and private participation in things like the healthcare plan. &gt;Yeah so maybe he should cut his bullshit rhetoric when those jobs are on the line and the only one responsible for their fates is him. And if it's really too much of a bother for him to run the company if he's making slightly less money when he's already said he has more money than he'll ever need, he can promote someone else to run the company or just sell it. Saying he cares about his employees makes him a liar, criticizing people who spent beyond their means makes him a hypocrite, and his empty threats and brow beating make him a bully. Jobs are a byproduct of his goal and thus peripheral. They are that way for EVERY company. Unless it's a very small company the employees are not more important than the business itself. You keep portraying this as ""slightly less"" but its not, its millions and millions. The point is, it is his company and he can do whatever he wants. You obviously have no actual decision making business experience because if you did and talked to these people you'd realize they're not all greedy. Yes some make quite a bit of profit, but you'd also be amazed at all of the liabilities, government requirements and yes taxes they have to deal with. Right or wrong it's choice to decide what happens. not yours, not mine."
The number is a bit higher than what it seems. Its not like they fired 35,000 people. But by franchising the restaurants out, all the employees that worked at each location are now employees of the franchise owners. Not Burger King directly. So it reduced the number of employees burger king corporate has to maintain, but those people are still employed at burger king.  Just clearing that up in case someone thought they literally fired 35,000 people.
There is no common sense in Michigan and money does reveal character. Take a Michigan based business for example of more outrageous behavior that our State reps overlook. Frankenmuth Insurance company located in Frankenmuth Michigan purports in its commitment statement to policyholders to: Frankenmuth Insurance built a solid foundation adhering to its fundamental principles of honesty, integrity, unsurpassed customer service and conservative business practices. With much emphasis on Corporate Governance and common sense, this company located in Frankenmuth Michigan regularly violates its own commitment to policyholders by engaging in egregious conflicts of interest with board members that not only lack integrity, but are of blatant poor judgment for personal gain and detrimental to policyholders. The only policyholders invited to their annual policyholder meetings are employees and retirees of the company so that no one will vote against or challenge their elections. The board members are taken on annual trips with their spouses the week of the annual board meeting wherein on the last day, they (the board) are asked to vote on executive pay and bonuses. After a week of being wined and dined at exclusive resorts such as the One and Only Palmilla in Cabo and the Winn in Vegas the Frankenmuth executives know that the board will give them exorbitant raises and bonuses which is information they again refuse to disclose because of the public outrage their behavior would cause, adversely impacting their business. Getting what they want from the board afforded CEO Stanton a 12,000 sq foot retirement home newly constructed on a 1 million dollar plot of land at Bay Harbor overlooking Lake Michigan. One trip that Frankenmuth executives took 90 people on (those people were executives and spouses and agents and spouses) cost 5 million dollars for one week. That translates to about $53K per person. Bill Schutte pretends to care about the taxpayers dollars and how they are spent yet he thus far has refused to require Frankenmuth to disclose it's egregious spending of lavish trips and entertainment and or investigate the clear conflicts of interest with its board that are costing the taxpayers of Michigan huge dollars in increased premiums.
"&gt;You bring up a very good point. If he cares so much about his employees, but it's just too inconvenient for him to run the company if his taxes go up 5%, why not sell it instead of putting 7000 people out of a job? Why threaten people when there's an obvious alternative? Hell, if he just wants to close it anyways, he could just give the company away. It's funny you think we're talking about only 5%, liabilities could go up 10-15%. It's not just taxes, its insurance liabilities and other requirements. What ""business"" experience do you have? You obviously aren't considering all the angles here. And it's not about caring or not caring about his employees. Believe it or not I'll bet he didn't start the company 40+ years ago to create jobs for his employees. Caring for employees only gets you so far, he probably cares for them as much as he cares about his office or his properties. But if one of his office became condemned and dealing with it became more stressful than profitable, guess what? He'd blow it up and never look back. &gt;Nope. He explicitly states that he will downsize or close the company if there are any new taxes whatsoever on either him or the business. It's also worth noting that his company is currently more profitable than its ever been. But that comes down from somebody who has seen increased liabilities increased over the decades. Its all or nothing at this point. And it wouldn't be a tiny increase in liabilities. Gross profit =/= net profit. &gt;What? Obama has used the argument ""you didn't build that"" to say you benefited from other people's taxes to get where you are. But guess what? Government existed just fine without increased taxes. It's only now that they want to maintain and will increase the level of spending they need more revenues and private participation in things like the healthcare plan. &gt;Yeah so maybe he should cut his bullshit rhetoric when those jobs are on the line and the only one responsible for their fates is him.
&gt; Just because people think that's how it should be doesn't make it correct.    But businesses aren't making any sort of normative statement, they are offering a position which is open to people who decide it's a reasonable exchange.    You on the other hand are arguing that some central authority, rather than the market, should decide on fair remuneration.
If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains.  (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance).   However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens.  But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks.  (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway).   Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners.  As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can.  However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners).   Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business.  As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable.   It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends.  This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.
One trip that Frankenmuth executives took 90 people on (those people were executives and spouses and agents and spouses) cost 5 million dollars for one week. That translates to about $53K per person. Bill Schutte pretends to care about the taxpayers dollars and how they are spent yet he thus far has refused to require Frankenmuth to disclose it's egregious spending of lavish trips and entertainment and or investigate the clear conflicts of interest with its board that are costing the taxpayers of Michigan huge dollars in increased premiums. On top of all of this, Frankenmuth admittedly has a computer system that does not track its employees use of policyholder information meaning the public is not safe from potential identity theft nor is the company safe from internal theft. Frankenmuth uses credit reports to jack prices of policyholders up - someones credit has no bearing on their ability to drive and the executives are laughing all the way to the bank with the board in their pocket from canned elections.
There are not always capital-efficient ways for a company to reinvest its own profits. This is why dividends exist.  Imagine a company will reinvest 80% of its profits into a project with a huge projected return, but the other 20% of the company's profits cannot be reinvested efficiently because there are zero projects in which to reinvest the profits into that would return a better profit than what the company's shareholders could make by reinvesting those profits in their own way (ie: a benchmark market index like an S&amp;P 500 index fund).  Since the shareholders could make a better return with this than the company could with any company project, it would be irresponsible (technically maybe even illegal) for the company to reinvest that 20% of the profits.  This reason for companies sometimes paying out profits to shareholders in the form of dividends is a market-efficient part of the economic system, and it really is great.  If a CEO/CFO/anyone is paying out so much profit from a company that it is irresponsible to the company's investors, then that would also technically be illegal since the company is evading efficient project that would benefit its shareholders more than they could benefit themselves elsewhere in the market.  (These legalities with shareholder laws are not explicitly put into action very often, but their effects are always there)   It's also worth noting payout/plowback strategy is very important for the strategy and financing of a company, particularly for public investments.
I can think of a few good reasons: A company, especially public, usually wants their fourth-quarter earnings to be the strongest of the year. That ends each fiscal year on a high note for the company and its investors, which helps public sentiment and boosts stock prices. So, travel agencies and airlines usually like ending their year in October or March, in the lull between the summer and winter travel seasons with a large amount of that revenue falling within the company's fiscal Q4. Oil companies sometimes do the same because fuel prices are seasonal for much the same reasons. December is a really bad month to try to close out an entire year's accounting books. Accountants and execs are on vacation for large parts of the month, most retail stores are flooded with revenue (and then contra-revenue as items are returned) that takes time to account at the store level and then filter up to the corporate office, etc etc. It also doesn't tell the whole story for most retail outfits; December sales are usually inflated by purchases that are then returned in January after all the hullaballoo. As a result, a fiscal year end in January or even February keeps the entire season's revenues and expenses in one fiscal year.
In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price.
This is why minimum wage has not gone up.  Its a fallacy way of thinking.  - Your business will be required to do one of 4 things.  Raise prices, fire employees, remove pointless expenses, or you take a hit.  More than likely you will attempt to do situation 1 because you need all your employees you currently have.  If you could work with less employees as a business owner you would of already had done that.  The next part is you will find things that are pointless.  Why are you paying for a certain type of yeast when you found out you can get the same type from someone else cheaper.  Finally you may have to take the hit to yourself.  The market will balance itself out.  HOWEVER this is the big part people dont understand.  The larger companies like to dick people over as much as possible.  You think walmart which already uses illegal workers on their farms nad has everything made in china is going to raise prices the exact same amount?  Of course not.  They will raise prices but nothing like that, and the only people who will be hurt is the companies profit sheets, and the ceo pay.  That is nothing that will ruin a company.  Furthermore that person who was making around 7 dollars an hour will have a higher income to spend and instead of purchasing crap bread from walmart they will now splurge sometimes and purchase higher end bread from bakeries such as yourself.  I think people dont understand that companies will do, and always hve done, everything they can to save money.  Walmart will have no choice but to either raise prices or not make as large of a profit as they once made.  The company wont fail, the economy will also continue, but the wealth is now going to spread out more.  I wish i could make more people understand this, but alas they will believe that you cant raise prices because it will ruin the economy.  Whats ruining the economy is actually letting the min wage stay so low.  It basically turns most people into indentured servants because they can barely afford to live.  Does that make sense?
I don't think they could have done anything besides what they did.  There's plenty of cheaper alternatives that no one talks about because they're not as good.  Lego has been the world leader for decades because of its commitment to perfection.  I'm guessing their boom had a lot to do with their diversification.  They went pretty strong into TV shows, movies, video games...all of which are getting old.
And besides a personal attack, to the points I made, do you have anything to say?  My usual conclusion when I get a personal attack with no substance is that the other side has no counter claims and no clue what they are talking about.
As an insider who experienced both, i can confirm. Walmart's culture is very... rough. The executives i have met just act like their soul was stolen, theres no real interest in the company's future or its people. It feels like nobody really cares.  Meanwhile at Amazon, the company has taken the relatively new silicon valley business model to heart. Amazon not only invests in expansion and growth, but it invests significantly in its personnel. There are millions of dollars rolling around, being invested in employee development and growth through programs like their tuition assistance and employee assistance. Amazon shows its employees that the company cares by investing in them, and that makes a huge difference in employee retention and productivity. I know people who have worked at one warehouse for over 10 years and never considered leaving because the company makes them feel wanted. That culture is built from the very top all the way to the lowest supervisor.
Research the company that is all I can say this company has horrible reviews. They show on their Facebook page great reviews but if you really look through all reviews the high ratings are from past and current employees. All other reviews from actual home owners are bad. They make a lot of false promises and build very cheap homes that will not last without several costly problems within the near future. Most people that buy one of their houses sell it within a few years because they start having so many problems. They have outside vendors doing all the work and do not make these vendors very accountable. I know I was a manager with Rausch for several years. STAY AWAY!
Not the same.  If Walmart were to actually make a product and then let the same people who made it buy the product before any customers, that is a problem.  Heck, it even pisses me off when a new product comes out (not made by Walmart, say Star Wars ships) and Walmart employees buy all of them up before they hit the shelves. That's fucked up.  They aren't customers at that point. They are taking unfair advantage of their employment to buy things not yet available to real customers.  Also, it has been long standing practice to not let employees buy the first X products off the line.  Why?  Because they might put more into the product that what they are paying for.   Imagine if ALL the employees were to buy the new 3S before Tesla let a real customer get one. Imagine how many customers who put deposits down would be pissed.   IMHO, personally and professionally, it's just wrong to let your employees have first dibs.