vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;There was a good quote in the article about how Google, Apple and Amazon combined employ fewer than 1/3 the people that GM did in 1980. Yeah, that was from [the Economist](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/10/death-steve-jobs?page=1) First, that is only a total of their DIRECT employees (numbers from Wikipedia on each company): * Amazon = 33,700 * Apple = 60,400 * Facebook = 3,000 * Google = 31,353 So, that is NOT including *indirect* employees, including any and all subcontractors... to wit: * Amazon -- sells lots of stuff, but lets just think of the BOOKS alone: there are LOTS of authors, publishers, printing industry people, etc -- who are NOT direct employees of Amazon, nor even indirect ""contract"" employees; but whom Amazon's business model has doubtless helped to increase TOTAL sales of their products. (And then of course, there are all of the Amazon ""affiliates"".) * Apple -- sells stuff, but basically no longer manufactures anything at all (so comparing it to GM would only be valid if one looked ONLY at GM's engineering and sales personnel, and ignored it's manufacturing people, or if GM had likewise ""subcontracted"" all of its manufacturing to say Toyota); just about everything that Apple sells is made by subcontract overseas manufacturers -- like FoxConn (which employed over 900,000 people in China in 2010); and of course that is NOT including the component manufacturers. And of course, this is also ignoring the entire software industry that has built up around Apple's products (Mac and iApp developers). * Facebook &amp; Google -- likewise, there are a lot of ""indirect"" non-employees who nonetheless are in many senses laboring for these companies AND be compensated by them (whether App developers, affiliates, etc).
*Reuters was able to confirm at least 50 people were let go in the past three weeks*  ...so when a few bankers get sacked they make the news just like [10000 nokia employees](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/technology/nokia-to-cut-10000-jobs-and-close-3-facilities.html?pagewanted=all) right?    /me being deliberately provocative, I guess the real focus of the article was on the negative trend of the economy forcing banks as well as companies to rething their organization... but still, am I the only one seeing a huge bias in information here?
&gt;if the Millenials are still hard up for work), then employers will likely defer to candidates that they deem to be more mature.  Realistically, they would likely think the younger one is more mature.  Reason being, a Gen Y'er that has been unemployed for a while, companies make the assumption that there must be something wrong with them if noone hired them.  Not special to Gen Y though.  Anyone who is unemployed for a long period of time they make that assumption.  The longer you are unemployed, the less likely companies want to hire you, it's a vicious circle.
It's about time that we start antitrust against a number of massive corps.  Enough is enough.  A mere mention by Amazon that they might be going into a new industry decimates the stocks of all companies in that industry.  It's not that Amazon has a secret sauce other than firing all employees and driving them to welfare but their sheer size. It brings back memories of the robber barons, the massive oil conglomerates and AT&amp;T that were broken up to the benefit of society.
Maybe the retailers will learn that their only competitive advantage is their employees.  And they will stop allowing employees to be such surly douchebags.  Seriously.  Who the fuck wants to talk to a Target employee, for example.  They're miserable people who don't want to be bothered.  I'll be glad to see them all fail with maybe just a few left who can actually do customer service well.
Apologies, I agree with Iamchrisbrown209, girlfriend-beating fuckmunch that he may be. Walmart does not tolerate strikes because the majority of Walmart's employees simply don't have enough experience to strike- were I a dock loader, if half my stevedores striked tomorrow I'd simply fire them and hire a bunch of other guys who could lift heavy things in exchange for x amount of money tomorrow. Because in the global (and most local) labour markets at this time and in this global economy, I could. I simply could do that.     It's sad, and, I agree, wrong. The reason that the minimum wage exists is because of protectorate and nationalist business practices, nothing more. It may be a *good* thing, and a *right* thing, and I agree that it is, but it isn't because of compassion. It's because at the time that the concept of minimum wage was negotiated and discussed, there wasn't really such a thing as outsourcing. Companies could not outsource their labour to other markets, because for a large time there was no other market to outsource to. The concept of shipping jobs to China, or India, or Brazil, or, in fact, anywhere else, simply didn't exist.   The ultimate message is that people don't *deserve* anything; they get what they fight for in reasonable circumstances and what they successfully lobby their government on. Namely, that tends to be popular, fiscally sensible (although not so much in the United States, in some cases) and viable political policies. Nothing more. It's very sad. It's not right. But it is reality, unfortunately.
I am an independent liberal.  Therefore, Donald Trump would be the last person I would praise.  However, working in tech; I now see companies offering U.S. employees substantially bigger paychecks.  I don't know what the exact cause of this is; but, I can safely assume that this so called brain drain must be very limited.
They picked him up at his home. They went out of their way to victimize him. In order to say exactly how it was done you need to investigate the business, do interviews and review records. Destroying evidence and giving false statements to the police are serious crimes. Are the employees going to want to risk jail and criminal records to protect this business?
While I don't hate Walmart and I do believe in the labor market, it's important to note that Walmart's taxes aren't earmarked specifically for the welfare benefits of its employees; they support _every_ part of the huge, US government spending machine.  It is fair to say, though, that if Walmart didn't pay their employees, then those employees would be sucking up even _more_ tax money in the form of welfare, costs of incarceration, and so on.
As an addition to Chris Rea's excellent answer, these tender offers are sometimes made specifically to cast doubt on the current market price. For instance, a large public company that contracts with a smaller supplier or service company, also public, might make a tender offer below market price. The market will look at this price and the business relationship, and wonder what the larger company knows about the smaller one that they don't. Now, what happens when investors lose confidence in a stock? They sell it, supply goes up, demand goes down, and the price drops. The company making the tender offer can then get its shares either way; directly via the offer, or on the open market. This is, however, usually not successful beyond the very short term, and typically only works because the company making a tender offer is the 800-pound gorilla, which can dictate its own terms with practically anyone else it meets. Such offers are also very closely watched by the SEC; if there's any hint that the larger company is acting in a predatory manner, or that its management is using the power and information of the company to profit themselves, the strategy will backfire as the larger company finds itself the target of SEC and DoJ legal proceedings.
The projects are expensive because they are technically challenging.  The point is that BART (an existing public transit system) has no money for infrastructure investments because it's spent on employee benefits (gross salary, overtime, and pension benefits).    Paying a janitor $100k in any locality is ridiculous and that includes the bay area.  A private corporation, such as Facebook doesn't pay their janitors $100k.  They contract the labor out to a company who pays $20/hr and they hire another employee instead of paying 1.5x or 2.0x overtime.
I looked them up after class and it's a company with many different branches and it doesn't really specify what his title is (besides VP) or what kind of work he does. I'm thinking I'll just have to wait till the interview to know exactly what his job entails. But thank you!
"So you've already considered relocation. Here are a few additional things to consider with respect to negotiating a signing bonus (if any): Would you be leaving a position where you are eligible for an upcoming bonus, profit-share, or other special incentive payout, such as a stock option or RSU vesting date?  A signing bonus can help offset the opportunity cost of leaving a previous job when an incentive payout date is near. At the new company, would you be required to wait some pre-defined period to be eligible to participate in the pension or retirement savings plan with employer basic or matching contributions? If you were receiving ongoing employer contributions in your previous company's plan and would need to wait, say, six months before participating in the new company's plan, a signing bonus can offset lost employer contributions in the interim. Consider funding your own IRA in that time. Would you be required to give up something else of value to you that your previous employer was providing, such as an expensive laptop, that is not expected to otherwise be replaced by the new company? Whether they offer a signing bonus and how much you can expect to negotiate is based on a lot of factors and you'll need to ""play it by ear.""  Remember what bonus means: ""A payment or gift added to what is usual or expected, in particular."" Remember also that a signing bonus is a one time thing.  In general, it's more important to consider the overall ongoing compensation package – salary and incentive plans, vacation, retirement benefits, health benefits, etc. – and whether those meet your long-term needs."
It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.
"&gt;If you're in a VP+/Director position, you don't get blindsided by this shit no matter what which division you're responsible for ...  ""Blindsided"" is very different from ""responsible for.""   The Director of HR might know that the CEO is tanking the company, but have no means by which to repair or stop the damage.  You're just making an empty connection to justify your overly broad, ""tough guy"" fantasy.  &gt;Okay, let 'em quit. Any stock options they have / other benefits get cashed out and applied to outstanding debts accrued under them before any payout reaches them.   1) Many of those benefits may have already vested, or otherwise vest when you constructively terminate them by withholding their salary.  What that means is that they no longer belong to the company, and can't just be seized to play God with. The equivalent would be your employer reaching into your 401k and clawing back vested matching.  2) You're still just engaging in tough-guy fantasy, and ignoring the problem of a rudderless, headless company.  Beating you chest and roaring won't stop the employees from being fucked over even harder when inventory stops showing up in the warehouse."
If you are looking for quality floors for your garage then just get in touch with a leading company. Such companies offer epoxy garage floors that have a number of benefits including easy to clean, stain resistance, durability and safety.
This is the result of market competition as well.  * Cheese Company A pays its employees $10/hour. (20k/year) * Cheese Company B pays its employees $20/hour. (40k/year)  This increase in wages results in a 50cent increase/kg in production cost to company B.  Since the grocery chain has a policy to set their sales-price to 100% of purchase price, (in order to break even on a sale-price), this 50cent increase/kg, results in $1/kg when it hits the consumer.  Assume both cheeses are equal, most consumers will purchase the product at a lower price, leading to lost sales for company B.   **Capitalism, is a race to the bottom.**
The government and local police is probably doing the same with all the cameras on highways and in city streets. I trust the IT security of a local civic government less than one of the largest e-commerce conglomerate.   Besides, your Amazon profile is already pretty telling, if you're a prime member taking advantage of its benefits. You tell it your years of purchase preferences, your ebooks, music and audio tastes with prime video and music, your groceries can tell how big a family you have, they also have your home and very likely work addresses.
The city's leaders operated on the assumption that the housing boom would continue in perpetuity and committed too much of the city's coffers to employee benefits. Median home prices in Stockton fell from nearly $400,000 in 2006 to roughly to $110,000 in 2009, which decimated property tax receipts. The city has the 2nd highest rate of foreclosures in the country. They've been running perennial budget deficits and have burned through all their emergency rainy day funds. Public safety represents 80% of the city's $200 million budget, and city employees receive a guaranteed salary increase from 2.5-7% each year. Employee healthcare costs have seen a meteoric rise, growing at 10% per year over the past decade. Other post-employment benefits (OPEB), including pensions, are have also skyrocketed. Stockton is on the hook for more than $800 million in unfunded liabilities for pensions and OPEB. So, basically, public employees are draining the resources of a city that has been devastated by the housing collapse.
The median Fortune 500 company made 10 billion in revenues last year.   If the company does 5% better, thats 500 million dollars. If you think the CEO is responsible for only 1% of that, its 5 million dollars.   EDIT: You wanted two good reasons. Take a look at what a bad CEO can do at a company -- say, HP -- versus a good one, say, GE or Apple. If you can justify an extremely high salary for the high end, then the next best performers can argue that as well.  I think lots of people would be ok with the best CEOs earning the salaries in that top 10 list if the worst CEOs also weren't paid millions.
I hope there's so much wrong with what I wrote, I do. Thank you for correcting me. For argument's sake, my following responses will assume that you are talking about the US market. Almost any other kind of argument would take too long to elaborate or expand upon. In North America, the rules of Capitalism *are* somewhat ironclad, are they not? Did Americans have a debate over whether or not workers even have the right to strike, or collectively bargain, last year? Aside from that, I am aware hat other US companies do in fact offer much better benefits than others. Target, for example, offers much better healthcare insurance than Walmart does. This is among one of many boons that Target offers to its employees. It can be argued that Target treats its employees much better than Walmart, including its part-time employees. Why, therefore, is Target not much more popular than Walmart? My answer would be that the average consumer does not care about much except lower prices, and those consumers that do, do not shop at Walmart, which is still the most popular supermarket chain in the US. The consumers who do shop at a different or more expensive chain are therefore in the minority, whether because of morals or lack of choice. Corporations are amoral. They exist solely to make a profit, and nothing else. Compassion does not come into it. Higher standards are, and will expand, if there is consumer interest in them doing so. Outsourcing definitely applies here. You've seen the self-checkout facilities available at most stores? When there is a way of scanning every product a person has on them before they exit the store as well as a way of preventing them from exiting the store before they've paid for those goods, you can bet anything on almost every cashier in America being fired from the stores that can afford it. We are very, very close to that, in terms of technology alone, let alone deployment. The US cannot afford to impose tariffs, unfortunately. With every anti-competitive tariff it imposes, exports and imports go down in the billions of dollar ranges. It is not a coincidence that the Eurozone countries who have led the way in tariffs are those you names in your post.
I certainly do not agree and you are making some sweeping statements without backing them up. What I am saying is that a company cannot make a promise of credit to an employee without having something to back that up. If you don't have that then you cannot offer pensions or other futures that you cannot ensure are going to be properly funded. No one forces a company to offer pensions in this day and age (there are exceptions of course) so they do not need to offer it at all.   Things like pensions are often used as incentives that can be provided in lieu of cash payments to the employee. If we are going to make cash like exchanges of value then that value should be just as guaranteed as it is when the company promises to pay back a loan.   In short you should not be able to hire employees on a financial promise you cannot keep in good faith. If for some reason you cannot keep that promise, just like with standard credit it should hurt you.   Or you know, as a company don't make BS promises and just pay people what they are worth.
"&gt; if they believed a doubling of wages would result in greater sales and profitability they would do it in an heartbeat. But it won't.  Who said it would increase their profit?  Just you, in this red herring.  No one is saying that.  Raising employees' wages and benefits would a) create happier employees, many of whom might just work harder and better and b) create *very* good PR for Wal-Mart corporate, making many feel better about shopping there and c) those employees wouldn't have to rely on public welfare, benefiting the rest of us greatly.  This is really about the utter failure of trickle down:  richest company in the world, and why doesn't that trickle down to the employees?  Doing the right thing sometimes means delayed gratification, something ""job creators"" simply don't understand."
&gt; I no longer have the fantasy belief that I can do better managing my money than professional investors  The pension fund probably lost about as much as your investments did, but they still had to pay out as if they were meeting their targets. I understand you weren't really offered a choice between a higher salary or a pension, so my observation is academic, but to me it just seems strange to believe that a company can pay you a fixed sum of money 30 years in the future.   Maybe it's just a generational thing but the whole idea of investing (figuratively) your entire future in a single company doesn't make sense to me. I actually think it's good in the long run that we're moving away from the work at one company your entire life model. Companies shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement benefits any more than they should healthcare plans, IMO.
I'm simply pointing out the irony of this article.  They pay 7.1 billion to the government, then the government gives 2.66 to its employees. So, isn't Walmart paying their employees indirectly? Doesn't the amount they pay to the government more than double the amount the government pays out?   The point of the article is that employee benefits are being paid by the taxpayers, making walmart the great satan. This would be true if Walmart paid no taxes.  this argument (taxpayers pay walmart employees benefits) outlined by the dailykos is invalid from the start.  Mic drop.
This is basically a math problem. It depends on the pension benefits, the lump sum, and the chance that the company doesn't honor its pension plan. If you're willing to share the first 2 and the company name, it's possible to roughly figure out the odds of the third if your company has bonds or CDS. Maybe some bored analyst would do it for you here, or you could probably hire a financial advisor for an hour or 2 to figure it out.
I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.
"Like most forms of insurance, health insurance is regulated at the state level. So what is available to you will depend greatly upon which state you live in. You can probably find a list of insurance companies from your state's official website. Many states now provide ""insurance of last resort"" for individuals who can't get insurance through private insurance companies. You can try looking into professional and trade associations. Some offer group insurance plans comparable with COBRA coverage, meaning you'd get a group discount and benefits but without the benefit of an employer paying 30-80% of your premiums. As a software developer you may qualify for membership in the IEEE or ACM, which both offer several forms of insurance to members. The ASP also offers insurance, though they don't provide much information about it on the public portions of their website. These organization offer other benefits besides insurance so you may want to take that in to consideration. The National Federation of Independent Business also offers insurance to members. You may find other associations in your specific area. Credit Unions, Coops and the local chamber of commerce are all possible avenues of finding lower cost insurance options. If you are religious there are even some faith based non-insurance organizations that provide medical cost sharing services. They depend upon the generosity and sense of fairness and obligation of their members to share the burden of medical expenses so their definitely not for everyone."