vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
A lot of business sites are subscription only. Financial Times is the most obvious example. The Economist is the other. At least The Economist is making a very strong, healthy profit.  A lot of other businesses work on a Freemium model, most obviously Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Terminal costs 24k a year to lease, and it has a stronghold on the financial community. But you can get tons of Bloomberg news and data on their site/channel for free. Why? Because having that wide public reach adds value to Bloomberg--they have access to a lot of industry insiders who exchange tips etc. for the ability to leak info to the public, etc. It's a smart business model and works very well.  There are other models that work equally well, but I think a lot of people don't really realize this.
It's plywood with a laser cut living hinge. I'd be interested if it could be die cut en masse. I think it'd need some glue along key joins and something to keep the hinge shut during transit as a friction fit will probably fail somewhere.  If you want to do this on a small volume, buy a cheap laser cutter which can do 4mm plywood could let you make boxes on demand. You could make quite a few before you hit the break even point for plywood die cutting tooling and a minimum production run.  Or find a factory which does laser cut ply in china (alibaba) and get them to make 100.
Many business owners simply cannot afford to procure office space. An obvious solution to this problem may be what is referred to as a virtual office. A virtual office offers many of the benefits of an actual office without an expensive lease. A virtual office can be especially appealing to small startup businesses which simply haven't grown large enough yet to start looking for commercial office space.
Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.
I think its crazy seeing the comments here. did nobody thoroughly read the article? business owners have to make sure that their businesses succeed. drugs, even marijuana, are not a risk that insurance want to take. when the costs of operating a business go up, the money left to hire people goes down. if im spending 5 million in insurance to cover marijuana medical bills, instead of say, 1 million to not cover marijuana, then thats 4 million i dont have to pay workers better wages. people need to get a better balanced life view.  i understand that people want their liberties to do as they see fit, but in doing so they fail to see that other people are under no obligation to hire you if you are making choices that have the potential to hurt the business bottom line.
This was excellent.  VCs buy amazing ideas and people all the time for so little.  It was good to see someone who knows what their idea and execution are worth and stick to their guns.  I see small businesses sell for 2x revenue all the time and then flip on IPO for 10-20x earnings after some growth.  When you have a good team and process, let it ride.
How is this Spam? If you look me up you'll see why I posted... I have been manufacturing for seven years and written several articles around helping businesses cut costs.   If you think it's spam, you haven't done any research.
In order to run your business successfully, you need to manage your finances. At Nowsoft, we offer comprehensive accounting services and targeted financial advice. As an experienced small business accounting firm we are qualified to deliver and manage your accounts and finance efficiently. Our team of business and finance advisors works with businesses of all sizes, offering a range of accounting services. Visit us: https://webdevelopment.wistia.com/medias/xbxf1lxtas
No. That's backward thinking. These people are being held below a  livable standard by otherwise failed business models. This country has the most profitable businesses in the world. Those jobs will be replaced, and those people will be better off. That is how markets work.  Individuals who would rather see people toil endlessly for terrible businesses kept on life support by poor economic policy are the ones who should be ashamed.
"In general the consensus is that a small amount of inflation (usually 1.5-2% per year) is desirable.  That is why the Federal Reserve sets its inflation target in that range.  The reasons why are quite complex though. One reason is ""wage stickiness"" - ie., the observed phenomenon that employers don't like to cut wages.  Having a small rate of inflation means that when wages are steady in nominal terms, they are actually falling in real terms.  This gives employers more flexibility."
Same thing happened to me in the express checkout lane recently. Her total was less than $20 - I can't imagine writing a check for such a small amount.   I get it, old habits die hard, and some people are adamant about tracking their finances manually and carbon copies make that pretty dang easy, but I wish more businesses would stop accepting checks to hurry their extinction along.
I was just clarifying cause t3tsubo thought that BamBamCam was taking a jab at Warren Buffett when he was just mentioning Buffett Sr's wish to pass the company to Howard in a non executive role.  I've got no problem with small businesses doing it, hell the children probably have more passion for the business anyways. But yes, I would say this practice becomes a little more dicey with huge/public companies
What subsidies are you talking about?  From wikipedia:  &gt;&gt;'The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters'    More like small businesses are grateful there is a service they don't have to pay excessive administrative taxes to use and are sad the greed in the US is going to wreck yet another piece. The value of privatization is such a horrible scam.
"I agree with you most of what you're saying, but there is still the fundamental conflict at the bottom of all of this.  You are saying that the public accounting firms *should* do these things, when they are in fact just businesses, which are by definition amoral.  The ""public"" in ""public accounting"" is misleading here, for the firms are privately held owned organizations.  Of course there are going to be reputational benefits for acting in accordance to these standards, but if they can reasonably get away with it then why wouldn't they?  Edit:  Your comment in regards to the inefficiency of government audits is an excellent point, though."
If the country went to a sustainable minimum wage like 15 dollars an hour we would benefit more.  Anyone who thinks the walmart strikes are stupid and they should be fired clearly doesnt understand how the economy should work.    You can blame walmart for trying to make as much as possible and not caring about their workforce.  Look at costco and how they start all employees off at 12 dollars an hour.  The company does amazing still.  Also there have been countless studies that show increasing minimum wage does not hurt local businesses but actually helps out the economy.  Because those lower/middle class people have a higher purchasing power, do not need government assistance as much, and can work on starting other small businesses that help out.  The big nay sayers believe that it will cripple local businesses or increase the price of goods.  While goods will increase in price some it is never anywhere near the amount to correlate with the wage increase.  Its sad as a country people believe slavery is fine.  If you are pro for under 15 dollars an hour, you are pro slavery.  Im on my phone so i cant pull up all the fun statistics, but feel free to do the searches yourself.  Lots of stories on how it benefits an economy overall.  The only people making these facts up are the ones who own the businesses because their wealth will go down and be spread among employees more.
I read somewhere that they are the first generation of individuals who have been monitored by marketing firms and businesses since they were born.   All businesses really care about it being able to squeeze every dime out of a person regardless of a recent recession, poor job options and stagnant pay and growth.   Forget trying to make the world a better place, let those who've suffered the most suffer a little more -they won't notice.
Amazon uses their AWS profits to subsidize all their other businesses. They can afford to sell groceries at a loss until most of the competition goes out of business. It's good for consumers in the short term, but I wouldn't say it's capitalism working as intended. Unprofitable businesses are supposed to fold, not be propped up indefinitely by deep pocketed investors. It's monopolistic behavior without the monopoly, which I don't think we've ever seen on this scale before, so we aren't sure what, if anything, to do about it.
I know this is pulling at straws and something I am against but how is this different than when some Mississippi businesses decided they didn't want to sell to gay people? Again, I hate that my state did that and I am not for racism but it seems that Reddit was in arms against this yet I have seen many posts like this that is similar and your argument is basically what the business owners said as to why they didn't want to sell to gay people.  In your opinion, what is the difference? The businesses were not publicly owned, should they have been afforded the same leniency as Reddit is showing now...because they were not.  Again, completely against racism and what MS did, but why is it ok to hate on one type of business and not another?
It's the truth. It's not dodging if it's legal. Shitty? No doubt. But, the main problem with that is that smaller companies and individuals aren't able to do the same thing.   That's why it's wrong; it's only legal because big companies can lobby representatives to make it happen. Small guys have no love.   The 35% corporate tax rate argument is mostly bullshit because most large corporations don't pay anywhere near that. It's only those without the tax shelters that have to worry about it.
The problem as I see it is that multinationals are able to gain an unfair advantage over local, regional and national businesses simply by setting up subsidiaries in foreign tax havens.  This is obviously the fault of the government and not the multinationals themselves, but I really don't think it's right that a Starbucks can use loopholes, that only multinationals have access to, in order to avoid paying taxes, while the small business down the street has to pay taxes on all taxable income.
McDonald's doesn't do it because no one would shop there if they treated their successful customers as piggy banks. Their model would fail without a captive audience instead of voluntary customers. The only reason why the state can get away with it is because they somehow convinced people that they know better and should be allowed to force others to bend to their will. McDonald's doesn't need to force customers to shop there because they offer products people are willing to pay for without threats and intimidation. No need for doctrine.
So basically they are the same as most other for profit businesses.  The big difference is they offer global variety and easy checkout. If the malls don't have it, Amazon is the place to look. Or is competition no longer good for business?
So much fail and misinformation in this thread. China has REDUCED it's Treasury holdings in 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/economy/as-the-us-borrows-who-lends.html?_r=0 Also, FTFA, The FEDERAL RESERVE is the largest holder of US Govt Debt, at 1.65 Trillion. Japan is the largest FOREIGN purchaser of US Govt Debt. This is because China has actively been selling US Debt. Why you may ask? Because the United States manipulates the interest rates on it's debt. Google 'Operation Twist'
Yes, money is created out of thin air, and it is a good and necessary thing. All money, even commodity money such as gold, is given value only by what can be traded for it. So in that sense *all* money is created out of thin air, because it represents the payment of a future debt. Money merely serves as IOUs between traders.  Who do you think should be responsible for adding money to the system? Inndividuals? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Individual banks? Been tried, doesn't work so well. Nation states? Works a lot better, although can still fail.  So far having a central bank issue money as an economy needs it for trade has been the most successful method to deal with who gets to issue the IOUs.  EDIT: see my post above on a little how and why it works as it does.
&gt;Companies have been hiring younger workers because of purely cost-based considerations.  Nope all the economic evidence shows that young people without higher education pre-recession and pretty much all under 30s since the recession have been pushed out of the labour market in favour of older workers, already established workers taking pay cuts and part time work and in many lesser skilled areas immigrant labour.  &gt;The problem is that most of the children we've dealt with feel completely entitled to a baby boomer salary   The entitled/not prepared for work etc arguments that people have started to make is bullshit and a ridiculous piece of nonsense spouted by business groups when asked why arent you hiring more. It was the same 10,20,30 years ago and i bet if you look back at any major recession businesses will spout the same nonsense.   You also complain of them jumping ship, then provide a career ladder, training and a competitive salary. Businesses destroyed job security and career progression in so many areas to save money they never think it costs them money and productivity in the long term.
"Horseshit, for one it isn't the CEO that has to be a minority in these preference contracts it's the shareholders so we know you're full of shit.  Second, no company is *banned* under any of these schemes because of the race of even shareholders. Even the suggestion is fucking ridiculous because that would clearly violate the 14th amendment.   The federal gov and state governments have TONS of vendors for which a small percentage they've decided they want to make a conscious effort of hiring minority and women owned contractors. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT WHITE CONTRACTORS. It means that after bids are submitted they might still consider a minority or women owned bid that doesn't come in at the lowest price. In any case it's usually a small sliver of total contracts. If you're wondering why they do this for minorities and women, they do it for a bunch of different categories including veterans and small businesses. It's a feel good story.  Your company did not lose a contract because your CEO is white, that is just a fucking lie. Your company might have lost a bid to a woman or minority owned contractor. To which, I say ""tough."" You might have lost the contract anyway to another bidder. Maybe your work wasn't as good as you say. We have no way to know without knowing your bid and their bid and if they are in fact minority owned.  So as of now you're just some guy bitching about losing his job on the internet. Go somewhere with that bullshit."
The state of California shouldn't be commended and given credit for removing shitty legislation that shouldn't have existed in the first place.  Also, to repeat myself because it cannot be stated enough, the government does not create businesses.  Hell, the state of California might be the most anti-business state in the union.  In no other state is it as expensive or as difficult to run a compliant business due to the mountains of unnecessary bullshit California makes businesses navigate through.
However, to challenge your view, consider that some of the best returns in the last 10-20 years have come from emerging markets like the BRICs, which have the highest wealth inequality. &gt;automation That's what was said about the cotton gin, the car, the steel mill, the train, the telephone, the internet. Wrong every time, and will continue to be wrong in the future. It's pretty arrogant to think that somehow things will be ""different this time."" Human capacity for innovation is ridiculous. [You're arguing against a very strong and accelerating trend.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP) &gt;globalization Excellent for stock market returns, in case you haven't noticed. &gt;isolationism Terrible for stock market returns, I agree. But see my point above about NAFTA. Trump actually listens to businesses as opposed to Obama. He will tread very carefully here. &gt;stock market bubble There is no evidence of a stock market bubble. Trump is talking about reducing corporate taxes from 35% down to a much lower rate like 20%. That immediately increases the value of stocks, boosts economic activity, boosts economic competitiveness, and reduces drag on the economy. Even better, as small/medium sized businesses pay much closer to 35%, lowering the tax helps small/medium sizes businesses the most. That's why small caps are spanking large caps right now. Just a note - the stock market is up around 20% since the election, pretty close to the amount the corporate tax rate is slated to drop. It's critical this tax cut get done to support current valuations. I believe it will as it's long overdue. &gt;housing market bubble There is no bubble, there is lack of supply. Skyrocketing rents as you mentioned above is the opposite of a housing market bubble. It's the symptom of a severe housing market shortage. House building needs to increase dramatically and it will in areas that reduce regulations. &gt;lack of real banking reform Dodd-Frank and other regulations are on the chopping block, which will help. Reforms are coming.
Most businesses operate at a loss for the first year or two, and reinvest all the profits for expansion for a few years after that. So higher income taxes won't affect them one bit.  &gt; I don't know why everyone focuses so much on the marginal rate of the rich, you can tax the rich 99% and you still won't have enough revenues to cover our budget deficit let alone make the investment we need in infrastructure, health, and education.  Half of all incomes goes to the top 10%. They have more than enough money to fix our infrastructure and education budgets without a negative impact on their life style.  (Note: I intentionally ommitted health care because money alone won't fix that mess.)
Why shouldn't I bring it up? Freight is one thing but if there's an interest in increased commuter rail or other passenger rail, areas where businesses would use freight rail if it was extended to them or anything like electrifying the system, then it's far more likely that the government will have to be shelling out the money instead of private organizations. It takes huge capital investments and years to extend something like commuter rail and businesses probably don't want to wait potentially decades to real the rewards of a risky venture, so it will be left to public investment to extend systems into some areas that may become hotspots of activity after rail reaches them. It's not all about the freight lines.
So you dislike Unions?  Why were unions necessary in the first place?  Is that problem resolved, or will it crop up again if they go away?  My belief is that Unions (or rather, the problems they solved) are still necessary.  But their methods need oversight just as much as businesses need to be held accountable for how they treat their employees.  Government paying their employees well shouldn’t be an issue.  We should be paying all employees well.  But we are on a race to the bottom, when it comes to employee wages.  When we can outsource our work to other countries (by building American businesses their), and get rewarded for it, we have broadened the field our own employees have to compete against.  When those businesses pay pennies on the dollar that they have to pay here, our employees CAN’T compete.
&gt; Texas didn't create jobs, it moved jobs. Corporations moved workers to Texas due to the lure of poverty wages for   Texas created many jobs, and one way of job creation is to make it pleasant for business and entrepreneurs to flourish. They don't flourish with high taxes and crippling regulations which protect big corporations over small businesses. They will flee those places and move to states or countries that are easier to do business, survive and prosper. **A very basic economic principle at work: Talent and capital always will flow toward higher returns.**  &gt; Cutting taxes doesn't raise revenue.  It does raise revenue over the longer run as people become more prosperous and businesses grow faster. The US is $17+ trillion in national debt. The shadow debt is much bigger.  Taxes are wasted and Americans are indebted by the welfare state. In 2012 an alarming 22 million households received food-stamps.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [Saving small businesses in New York: what are the solutions?](https://www.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/79zdil/saving_small_businesses_in_new_york_what_are_the/)  &amp;nbsp;*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
"Darling, I was an adjunct professor in a university.   With ""no child left behind"", people who can barely read finish high school and I, as a professor in the university, was told I cannot fail anyone of them in my classes.  High school requirements and even Bachelor degrees became a joke and totally worthless degrees.  And the more people get ""bachelor degree"" the less benefit and value those degrees will have.  **Not long time ago, to be a teller in Bank, you did not need to finish high school. Just be good with basic math and organized. Today, you need a bachelor degree. Why? Why not? Too many people with worthless degrees, so why not require it as part of the job?**"
&gt; 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. &gt; 2) The parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.  Outside of major cities with public transit infrastructure, where ARE people allowed to go then?  And not even for shopping, but pretty much everything outside of the home in these locales requires cars/driving.  That's just reality.  And, actually, I think it would be better to concentrate businesses into one dense area like a mall and then people aren't driving all over hitting up a bunch of different stops.  And, &gt;4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic.  I think this would be considered a sunk cost.  The malls are built.  If they go under now, then this bad stuff will happen.  If anything this is an argument why this news is bad for the environment.
No, but it's vested with the authority to interpret laws and pass regulations and interpretations like this.  If the franchise system sets the financial of the business such that wage violations are both predictable and mandatory for businesses to profit, then why shouldn't they be held accountable in purporting to their level of control.
You will need a lot of cash because all the gold that you will buy will be capitalized later. You must invest but you must use your head when you do it. It is one of the most profitable businesses but when you start it you should be prepared to pay the price.