vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
A lot of these comments are right but I'll add two: buybacks and lowering costs. Too many companies have generated hordes of cash over the years; some of it is entirely their fault, cash that wasn't used for r&amp;d (e.g. AAPL) and others simply don't have an opportunity to grow at their stage in the cooperate life cycle within their industry, so all that excess cash that has been generated for years is used for buybacks. Tech is making shit far more efficient and some companies have blotted cost structures, so introduce tech that makes the firm more efficient where applicable and cut unneeded employees.
Republicans always refer to economic/financial bills they don't like as anti-consumer, but don't actually tell you how it's bad for the consumer.  This rule is the definition of consumer friendly in that it allows the individuals to consolidate their power in order to take on a large corporation that can afford to hire lawyers indefinitely.
Government employees earn lots of airline miles if they travel frequently. However they are not allowed to use them for anything other than upgrades for themselves, you can't convert them into private travel vouchers for example. If a Govt employee gets bumped off a flight they can't even keep that money.   Because their fares are pre-negotiated on many city pair routes it will be a certain percentage of a refundable, flexible coach ticket, like 40% cheaper. However the airline miles rack up based on the class of the ticket which means they get a LOT of miles. Most private companies let their employees keep their miles and do whatever they want with them - so most of those people decide to stay in coach and keep them for a family vacation later.
Because its working so well right now?  Companies will still higher new employees if there is a demand.  Some people might lose their jobs but it will not be something that cripples the economy.  This sky is falling mentality is what keeps us stuck in this pseudo slavery enviornment we live in right now.
&gt; There's no entry path into these jobs. A lot of companies only seem to want to hire people who somehow earn these skills through osmosis and don't want to hire people on straight out of school.   At least in my case, I have several positions open and would most assuredly hire someone straight out of trade school. I have already set aside the budget to have them trained on our software platforms anyway. It would be great to actually find someone with 3-5yrs experience, however these types are hard to come by, even in this job market. 4 year degrees are a dime a dozen, finding people who have learned a concrete skill such as CAD/CAM, machining, welding, etc are not.   I can't just hire someone who has no training whatsoever either, nor can a hire someone who has a 4 year engineering degree, given that they are likely to up and leave when the opportunity arises, and after we have spent thousands of dollars and the time to have them trained.  Baby boomers have dominated these blue collar manufacturing jobs for decades. They are now retiring in droves leaving prime opportunities open for those willing to take advantage of them.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/how-to-revamp-the-visa-program-for-highly-skilled-workers) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; In Daniel Aobdia&amp;#039;s view, the program should be revamped to better serve the most qualified foreign employees-especially those who possess special, hard-to-replicate skills-and the companies who want to hire them.  &gt; The H-1B visa program, first introduced in 1990, was meant to allow U.S. companies to hire foreign workers with desirable skills, to fill the gaps in the labor market and help boost the economy.  &gt; Whatever reforms the government makes to its H-1B visa program-an auction feature, a points-based system, or some combination of the two-Aobdia says the goal should be to create a situation in which American companies feel encouraged to hire the best and brightest, no matter what their country of origin may be.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6jhs7u/companies_want_to_hire_the_best_employees_can/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~152513 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **visa**^#2 **work**^#3 **Aobdia**^#4 **system**^#5"
OK, looking at the balance sheet they have $42M in cash, but that is down from $325M in December. Meanwhile their debt has increased from $1.756B in December to $1.832B as of June so their net cash has dropped by $355M in only 6 months. It looks like they spent $329M (give or take) buying other companies in those 6 months. Otherwise their working capital (an important measure of the ability to run the business) looks OK at $230M. Looking at the income statement, they are making money: $70.6M in the last quarter on revenue of $226.7M, which is quite remarkable however they had an unusual item which increased earnings somewhat. Otherwise their earnings would have been about $39M, which is still pretty healthy.  All in, the company itself looks healthy and on a bit of a buying binge, growing through acquisition. I don’t like the debt load but that is probably usual for the industry.  When companies grow through acquisition they generally plan to reduce total employment because of redundancies because you sort of get economies of scale. This usually factors into the decision to buy the company: you increase revenues through the purchase and reduce costs by eliminating employees. This is typically how they “sell” an acquisition to investors.  If I was to guess (and it would only be a guess) this company has a team which looks at the employees of the company it just bought and decides where to downsize. It may not downsize from the newly acquired company but from its own existing employees for a variety of reasons. So most likely that is what you were a victim of: it wasn’t because the company was struggling, or because you were necessarily not a good employee. It is a process, albeit sometimes unfair, and you were a victim of it.  The layoff decisions are not always prudent and it can be hard to understand why a particular group was cut instead of another one. Management doesn’t always make the right call. The broadcast industry has been going through consolidation (companies buying companies) for some time now. Most likely management is hoping to “bulk up” to make it harder for another company to buy it and/or to get a better price when it is bought.   So in summary, most likely they are doing this for reasons of greed, ie, they’ll make more money with fewer employees. Sorry about your situation.
Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's.  In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts.   On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees.  Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR.
I honestly don't understand this sense of entitlement to being able to use your own device.  By giving an employee access to sensitive data on their own device, you are taking a risk that the company cannot technologically or legally mitigate. In the UK it would be a de-facto breach of the Data Protection Act.  If there was a rootkit on an employee's phone or laptop, and they got access to any sensitive data then game over.   This is not about inconvenience, it is about not costing the companies in question billions in fines. It is simply not worth it - especially as most employees are perfectly capable of losing work computers on trains and so on, so trusting them to look after their own system security is asking a bit much.  What happens if they lose their own laptop? A work laptop can be set to self destruct, but few employees are going to let their companies have that level of control over their laptop. And, here in the UK, if sensitive data is lost in that way and can be recovered using forensic tools then - bam - fines. A company has a legal obligation to ensure that their employee's and customer's data is safe, and any data accessed on a phone or laptop is still stored somewhere on that phone or laptop.  Third party software like Dropbox is notoriously insecure, too, so that shouldn't ever be used on a machine containing sensitive data. It's hard enough getting employees to take security seriously before exponentially increasing these risks as you describe.
&gt;These companies and others, including software developer GalaxE.Solutions Inc., say some complex functions, such as human-resources and software development, are better to have closer to their own operations and to respond to customers. Indian outsourcing companies are finding it tougher to get visas for workers brought from India, and some U.S. businesses want to outsource -- yet keep jobs in the country. State tax breaks also provide incentives to hire locally.   I stop reading after that. Outsource, Offshore, In-source...whatever the next fad buzz word that upper management can dream up is all about the bottom line. It's about the money!
"Incremental profit, not revenue. If the incremental profit I project from an additional hire is greater than the cost. Taxes drive the cost up and the profit down, depending on the tax. Saying ""I will hire no matter what taxes are levied against me"" is just as ridiculous as saying ""I will not hire if one cent is levied against me"".   At the end of the day, profits are the source of future expansion and investment (we are not publicly traded). Taxes effectively reduce the amount we have left to invest. They do not reduce this amount to zero, but they do reduce it.   You are right to imply that I want the business to grow constantly, but that requires investment of actual money before the top or bottom line impact happens, months or years in advance. Sometimes, you take a risk that doesn't pan out, and that money is gone forever. Sometimes it develops into a profitable segment of the business. In wither case, taxes reduce the chunk of change we can use for this kind of activity.  I sense latent hostility in your phrasing, but I hope I am wrong. It feels like you are accusing me of making a profit, but I openly admit to making a profit. I do not view this as something bad. It is profitability that allows me to increase salary and benefit levels for employees, try to continually improve working conditions, invest in new equipment, spend on r&amp;amp;d to make better products, and of course increase my personal income.  I try to align the way in which i make money personally with constantly making customers and employees happier. Happy customers means more revenue and happy employees means better processes, better ideas, and more profit. I don't view this as bad, and I hope I read emotion into your comment that you did not mean. If so, I apologize in advance, but if you did mean to be hostile, I hope you at least understand where I am coming from now.  Edit: grammar"
"&gt; If an employer sent this to me I'd seriously consider that a threat in regards against how I practice my political beliefs.  Why? There's no way the boss can know who voted for who, and it doesn't sound like he's threatening to hire people Obama bumper stickers or anything like that. This looks to me more like an attempt to inform his employees about how public policy can affect the company. (Note that I'm not saying his representations of and predictions about Obama's policies are accurate, but if they are, this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make.)  &gt; It undermines my right to educate myself.  I have no idea what you mean by that. Someone giving you information ""undermines your right"" to gather information from other sources?"
Are you daft?? In most US cities it’s **illegal** to run a private bus/mass-transit business. However, here’s two examples if it will get you to STFU:  https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/the-unique-genius-of-hong-kongs-public-transportation-system/279528/  https://thedetroitbus.com  http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/28/google-buses-corporate-shuttles-popular-poll/   Notice how Google and other companies that use buses for employees have to do it at no cost, because governments made it **illegal** for them to charge money for mass-transit services.
Demand is also a rule of economics and always exists.  It is the advertising/marketing efforts that fulfills the assumption of economics of perfect information.  It is the entrepreneurs/ investors estimation of what the demand will be once consumers have perfect information of the product that creates companies, spurs investment, and creates jobs to carry out the plan.  All of this is based on the idea that the investment of time and money will generate a return.  To use a different product as an example; there is always demand for food, with consumer preference for say pizza.  I'm not creating jobs by sitting on my fat ass at home wanting someone else to make me a pizza, and drive it to my doorstep.  If there isn't a pizza place I can make myself a PBJ sandwich and no jobs are created.  It was the entrepreneur/ investors who hypothesized there was a hidden demand for fatasses like me wanting pizza that made the plan for building a pizza place and then investing money which was used to hire employees based on the assumption that the demand existed, and my fatass would spend money giving them a return on their investment.
Getting home alterations Sydney is a serious thing and no matter how much we avoid, at some point of time, we’ll come across the necessity of the experts.You should always look to hire a home alterations Sydney company that accepts your plan and skimp upon imposing their plan.
&gt;  The point is that we've decided as a nation that we want to guarantee a basic level of healthcare  not sure abt that. maybe half the population has.   &gt; Companies like wal-mart take advantage of that, paying low wages and assuming employees will utilize the government assistance.  you can't be mad at someone for following the laws to their advantage. you CAN be mad at the gov't for letting them do it. the public is supposed to have control of gov't, not private business.   &gt; we should just fix our fucking healthcare system.  i think virtually everyone in america agrees. but there's wide disagreement on how.
We broke up all those guys. And if you look at the numbers they are in many ways. They paid a largest percent of profits to their workers than most companies do today if you take away the money spent on the CEO and top talent. The average person makes less because corporate thought has deemed employees pay the same as every other business expense when in the past they were considered differently.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/08/18/how-people-who-work-for-amazon-really-feel/#3072825d3305   &gt; Times reporters David Streitfeld and Jodi Kantor wrote in a 7,000-word feature that they had interviewed 100 current and former Amazon employees, most of whom described an intense, often cutthroat workplace where senior managers encourage their reports to attack one another’s ideas in meetings. An internal phone directory includes instructions on how to send secret notes about colleagues. Workers suffering from cancer, miscarriages or other personal issues are penalized or pushed out, as are any employees who don’t meet the company’s high standards. Many Amazon employees resort to weeping at their desks, said the story.
"Oh, so you are a HR ""professional"".  Everybody knows and its a source for a lot of jokes and essays that HR people are the enemy of employees, clueless about human relations and job requirements and the main cause of low moral in many companies.  And you, as an HR ""Professional"" going to give me lessons on how to evaluate candidates for IT jobs and how much they should get paid?  LOL!!!!!"
Well I doubt that it has no effect. It will happen regardless, but it will be slower. If the minimum wage was much higher, big companies would invest more in R&amp;D for automation. Automation companies will also have more customers and therefor will make more revenue and produce more units/projects and the price of automation will go down more and more, causing more companies to join in and not hire 15$/hour people who work less efficient than 2000$ robots on 10$/month.
Source? I have seen success stories constantly, and the company has donated tens of thousands of dollars of product to employees who lost homes in the recent disasters. And thats only a small part of how Amazon treats their employees. A simple google search would reveal even more, including details on the tuition assistance and employee assistance programs which Amazon spends millions to run.
Earthmoving equipment hire is a completely different thing from hiring other things required in a construction project. You should try and contact the companies that have all the equipments needed by you so that you don’t have to rush from one supplier to another to complete the required fleet.
60 Minutes is just reporting this now?  Been going on for years &amp; years.  In the Silicon Valley tech industry, the jobs themselves are outsourced to Infosys, Wipro, TCS, or similar who hire &amp; manage the H1-B visas.  Apple, Facebook, PayPal, Mattel, utility companies; yep they all do this.
Free logo makers are good to use for personal blogs. But, for companies or business, we have to hire a professional graphic designer or agency. If someone having money constraints, crowdsourcing is the best option as one get good logo designs at affordable price. My 2 cents!
Subsidies are anti-competitice practices. Its the government picking winners and losers over the market's preference.  Just like onerous regulations. Smaller companies aren't able to hire the overhead required to keep up with them, and are therefore fined out of existences due to this countries staggering regulatory burden.
The only ridiculous thing in the article is the statement that taxes to try to keep down inequality won't do any good because companies will hire less.   What bullshit. Taxes on the wealthy doesn't need to come from the companies alone, it should also come from closing ridiculous loopholes that only favour the rich, and a more progressive income tax system that includes all earnings, be them through wages or through capital gains.   I really don't understand why $100,000 in wages should be treated differently tax-wise than $100,000 in capital gains...
It's not just the executives.  Many of these companies are franchises and are also public, so they have shareholders.  When corporate, franchisees and shareholders all compete to make the most money, things turn to shit.  Look at McDonald's.  The food is total garbage, some of the worst in the fast food business.  They aren't particularly good to their employees, either.  That's because you have corporate, franchisees and shareholders squabbling over every last cent.  Now look at In-N-Out.  It is a privately held company and the food costs almost the same as McDonald's.  Except In-N-Out has good food and they are pretty good to their employees.  That's because In-N-Out doesn't have as many greedy, grasping hands as McDonald's.  These shitty fast food and fast casual places are doomed.  You can't have that many people demanding a piece of the profits.  That turns the food to complete shit and employees are underpaid and stop caring.
It's no coincidence that the companies really putting muscle behind this are some of the biggest in the world (Google, IBM, EY). As the article points out, they're bypassing colleges altogether to better access the best available talent. With the mega resources those companies have, all training can be provided on site. There's no need to wait 3-5 years to hire when they can do it now. There are definitely pros and cons to this, but it certainly levels the playing field. In theory, someone from a inner-city ghetto may outperform an ivy league graduate in a well-designed competency test, proving their worth based on merit rather than money. I expect it's something that will slowly begin to catch on as more businesses spot the opportunity.
Yeah because under those conditions, its usually a 50-50 joint venture with a Chinese company/local government - meaning its in the contract they show the partner how they do things and how their technology works they also lose control on who they bring in.  At least with a wholly own factory, they can control who they hire and have heavy restrictions on who they show their technology...    Before you go on and say China will infiltrate with spies and steal their technology...When it comes to corporate espionage - what would be stopping Tesla (or any multinational company) from hiring a spy in their current facilities in the US (or anywhere else)?
"No what he is saying is, ""If Obama wins, you will lose your job, so it is in your best interest to vote against Obama."" I hope his employees call his bluff and vote for who they feel will do the best for them, not be bullied into voting against the candidate their CEO is against.  To justify mass layoffs requires actual decreases in the companies revenue and their bottom line, not a decrease in the number of yachts the ceo could possibly buy."
Do you need to do anything special when you receive such a huge amount of money? YES, ABSOLUTELY! 1st: Hire a lawyer. Retain him. Preferably one who has experience with high net worth clients. 2nd: Hire a financial advisor/wealth manager. Similarly, one who has experience with high net worth clients. 3rd: Tell no one else that you won. I cannot stress this point enough. Do these things before you even claim your prize. Winning the lottery seems like a great thing to people who haven't won, but statistically speaking most people end up worse off. Most people, not just lottery winners, but people who come into large sums of money unexpectedly just don't know how to handle it. Hire people who do know how to handle that sort of thing and get them on your side. If you win the lottery PROTECT YOURSELF! Go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb38xf and read the top comment.
As a side note, how come airlines don't accept cash for in-flight beverages, headphones etc...  I'm guessing this is tied to their trust of their employees, or because they don't want to give any incentive for violence/unrest on the plane (ppl trying to steal the cash), but neither really make sense to me.
"My only issue with the whole ""Comcast and TWC are in cahoots to set prices 10x higher than what they should be"" is the fact that Comcast and TWC are hardly the most profitable companies in the US.   I mean, they are large companies with decent revenues, but they aren't making much more than other companies of their size that are in different fields.  If they were really a monopoly setting prices crazy high and exploiting nearly a hundred million Americans on their monthly bill... Wouldn't Comcast have like, crazy have profits that rival the oil companies?  I mean, Comcast has 120,000 employees and a 10 billion USD income. That's perfectly in line with other companies of that size such as CocaCola or P&amp;G.   And hell, TWC reported a net *loss* of 2 billion USD last year. People think they are a monopoly that's overcharging for services... When they aren't even making money?"