vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Walmart is the now the largest private employer on earth.  They have a large monopoly on a market that was once served by many different companies small to large.  As well, they use their size to heavily influence their supply chain and push them to lay off employees and make other cuts.  There is no competition for labour they can pay them whatever they want, and they are only customer for many of their suppliers, so they can set whatever price they want.  Walmart is a monopoly.
Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.
&gt;Like all laws, there is a balance to be struck between individual rights and the common good, and what can be seen as a ""right"" for one can often be seen as a ""right to violate another's rights"" for someone else. There is no game theoretic reason to assume, or empirical evidence that suggests, that violating people's property ownership rights leads to a greater betterment of the common good than would have happened with property ownership rights intact. &gt;&gt;The mighty is those who use the force of government or the threat of violence (e.g. violent strikes) to prevent another party from exercising their contract liberty and firing them. &gt;This is some pretty extreme hyperbole, and hard to take seriously. As history over the last century has shown, it's no hyperbole. Labor unions-backed regulations (soft-socialism) has succeeded in spite of the resistance of employers. &gt;Union membership in this country has dwindled to around 10%, down from around 50% during the middle of the century, and the erosion of the middle class has been the undeniable result. Because unions have destroyed nearly every major industry where they had a natural tendency to form (large scale capital intensive manufacturing operations where large numbers of workers were concentrated in one place). In no union-dominated industries did unions fade due to greater power by employers: vehicle manufacturing, low-value-high-volume consumer-goods manufacturing, ship-building, passenger rail service, US Steel. In all of these industries, the number of unionized employees declined because the industries themselves contracted in the US. &gt;Use the ""force of government""? You know, we may have the right to strike in this country, but there's no law that says a company can't hire replacement workers, indefinitely. The force of government prevents companies from refusing to collectively bargain with a labor union. &gt;Threat of violence? Violent strikes? This is a straw-man if I've ever seen one. Who is threatening violence here? This existed before government laws were created that made legal threats on behalf of employees that want to keep unionized employees employed and force companies to collectively bargain with a union.
The top attribute of the companies offering these machines under the tag of earthmoving equipment hire is that they have a dedicated staff for the care and maintenance of the machine and the experts say that perfectly running and good quality equipment is a pre-requisite, if you want to minimize the chances of mistakes in your project.
&gt; Not when 100 people apply for a receptionist job with 20 graduates in the mix.  How is a tax credit that encourages business owners to hire the long term unemployeed going to do anything to fix this problem?  Such a tax credit isn't going to create opportunity for businesses to hire more people.  It's just going to shift employment opportunities from the employed and short-term unemployed to the long-term unemployed.  Where is the value in this proposition?
No one is to blame other than these antiquated ceos that are so out of touch with the public. If half of your failed aplicants are failing due to mj maybe its time reevaluate your requirements perhaps ? The excuse of saftey concerns is completely misleading bs. I wonder how many current employees most likely use mj regularly. Fact is the general public view mj as more innocuous than alcohol yet these companies use its illegality as a reason to dodge isurance claims when thier employees are injured. Most frustrating part of this article is when he complains about being unable to compete with germany ...you know why ? Because most of Europe doesnt have completely invasive drug testing procedures and instead recruits based on qualification and performance like any good company should.
The mechanism of supply and demand is imperfect.  Producers don't know exactly how many purchasers/consumers for a good there are.  Some goods, by their nature, are in short supply, and some are plentiful. The process of price discovery is one where (in a nominally free market) producers and purchasers make offers and counter-offers to assess what the price should be.  As they do this the historical price changes, usually floating around some long-term average.  As it goes up, we experience inflation.  As it goes down, deflation. However, there isn't a fixed supply of producers and purchasers, so as new ones arrive and old ones leave, this too has an impact on supply and prices. Money (either in electronic or physical form) needs to be available to reflect the transactions and underpin the economy. Most central banks (at least in more established economies) aim for inflation of 2-4% by controlling the availability of money and the cost of borrowing new money.  There are numerous ways they can do this (printing, issuing bonds, etc.). The reason one wants some degree of inflation is because employees will never accept a pay cut even when one would significantly improve the overall economy.  Companies often decrease their prices in order to match lower demand, but employees don't usually accept decreased wages for decreased labour demand. A nominal degree of overall money inflation therefore solves this problem.  Employees who get a below-inflation wage increase are actually getting a wage cut. Supply and demand must be matched and some inflation is the inevitable consequence of this.
"You aren't playing devils advocate, you aren't thinking at all.  If it's skilled or not is not isn't relevant to the discussion at all.  Walmart makes more than enough money to pay their employees a living wage.   The fact is that every single walmart exists today beause their employees can be subsidized by the state and federal government which means your tax dollars that you work for every single day literally is being used to pad the profit margins of walmart executives and their shareholders.  Do you understand that?  Your tax dollars are paying for the benefits of Walmarts workers, Walmart is NOT paying the benefits of their employees out of the profit they make.    What's the argument here, that because it's ""unskilled labor"" these people don't deserve to be paid enough to not be on state aid?  is that really the argument here?  If ""unskilled labor"" is so worthless how is Walmart generating some of the largest profits of any company around when most of their work force is ""unskilled labor?"""
"Anyone that currently owns a business of any size is a slave to pretty much anyone else.  We are told who to hire, how much to pay, how much of the profits we must give to ""pay our fair share"", who we must serve and by what measure of quality, what prices we may charge (in many cases) and so on.  What you and people like you do not get is that those of us that enjoy starting businesses have lost our taste for it.  We're sick of working twice as hard as our employees and then being told we don't ""give back"" enough.   I would NEVER not hire or serve someone on the basis of their color, religion, sexuality, and so forth.  Why?  Because finding great people is hard enough, why reduce the potential population further with biotry and silliness.  BUT, I would also never hire a person BECAUSE of those things.  I don't care if you're black and feel like you're entitled to special consideration because your great-great-great-great grandfather was enslaved.  A) I don't care.  B) I had nothing to do with it.  C) You're not entitled to squat unless you've earned it.  Ditto Native Americans, women, homosexuals, people that are overweight, or any one of a dozen other manufactured excuses for not being willing to be measured by - as per MLK - the content of your character, not the color of your skin (or whatever).  In the mean time I have been on strike.  I am not starting another business or hiring another person until this nonsense gets put under control.  I made that committment the day the Worst President In My Lifetime - Mr Hoax And Shame - got elected.  Guess what?  There are lots of people like me and you're not going to see an improving unemployment picture until you quit squeezing us with this PC, feel good stupidity.   And you know what?  If you do end the EEOC lunacy, what will happen?  People of all flavors who are persons of character and ability will flourish and the low life white trash, black ghetto scum, drug addict losers that support the ideological left will ... starve.  And that's just fine with me so long as they do not block traffic."
Short answer is it's illegal to discriminate against people for reasons of age, gender, religion, race, or any other protected class.  These came about due to the history of various minority classes being kept out of the labor market for no fault of their own other than who they are or what they believe in.  I think the better question would be - if you're the owner of a workplace, why wouldn't you want the person best qualified for the job regardless of class?  I'm a moderate agnostic, and I have worked effectively with everyone from super-conservative fundamentalist Christans to socialist Buddhists.  If they know their stuff, I don't care whether they pray to a mythical sky beast or the bones of their ancestors.  In fact, having some non-Christians around is always nice for holiday coverage.    Sure, business owners should have the right to hire people who work well with existing employees, but that is superseded by the rights of people of all stripes should have the right to be judged based on their merits and not their birth or religion.
Walmart treated its employees like shit for decades, they are just now starting to treat their employees slightly better because its hurting their business. They will piss on their employees just enough to not leave stains that their average customer will notice, and leave no mind to the lingering smell that the more well off customer might notice, but has no interest in shopping there anyways.
"&gt;How to look at a group of people, asses their skills sets and organize them in a way that makes sense in order to get the job done?  It doesn't work like that, well at least not usually. You don't get a bunch of people you need to ""asses and organize."" You hire people you need and can afford. That's it."
Watch prices *not* rise because Target retail employees don't manufacture the product.  Their wages do not affect the prices on the shelves as much do Target's shelf gatekeepers.  Even if Target paid their hourly employees $30/hr the price of Heinz baked beans would be $2.
TIAA-Cref has their Social Choice Equity Fund, which is a Large Blend primarily equity fund that invests given the following consideration: The Fund primarily invests in companies that are screened by MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”) to favor companies that meet or exceed certain environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) criteria. The Fund does this by investing in U.S. companies included in one or more MSCI ESG Indices that meet or exceed the screening criteria described below. Prior to being eligible for inclusion in the MSCI ESG Indices, companies are subject to an ESG performance evaluation conducted by MSCI, consisting of numerous factors. The ESG evaluation process favors companies that are: (i) strong stewards of the environment; (ii) devoted to serving local communities where they operate and to human rights and philanthropy; (iii) committed to higher labor standards for their own employees and those in the supply chain; (iv) dedicated to producing high-quality and safe products; and (v) managed in an exemplary and ethical manner. https://www.tiaa.org/public/offer/products/mutual-funds/responsible-investing
I don't understand how they can force Walmart to pay more to their employees. Like most people have said they aren't forced to work there. If they demand higher wages given their skill set then they should be going elsewhere. People won't be asking for higher wages once they see that higher wages are pushed onto consumers through higher prices.
My friend runs a vocation school for high school students.  They have a number of programs where they teach specific machines and techniques to students and companies provide teaching, sponsorship, and hire students.  It is a win-win for the school, they get some machinery, a good relationship with a large company, and they get kids hired every year at a very good starting salary.  It isn't so specific that the kids are useless anywhere else, the companies just provide curriculum input on what is important.
&gt; By the time you're ready to hire, you should be past the point where $100k in sweat equity dribbled out over a four-year vesting period is worth bothering with another shareholder.  Really? Why? Most companies I've talked to need hands on deck from day one.  &gt; People on kickstartr are looking for cash, not cheap labor.  Cheap labour isn't avaliable on kickstarter, that's what Craigslist is for. You need both to get a company off the ground.  &gt; Founders usually lack the former and have plenty of their own time to supply the latter.  But they don't have the skills to cover all their bases. That's why they need cheap labour.
Nope. Ford are moving production to eastern and southern europe (where wages and employee protection are low), trusting that the EU will continue and that they will be able import vehicles to one of their primary markets without actually making the vehicle here.  Its actually one of the inequities of 'free trade' - the freedom for large companies to shop their production facilities around the world and in doing so make employees and the rich OECD countries poorer.  Eventually it will have to come to a screaming halt.
"You did not answer my question: Where's my advocate in the negotiations? Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?  What's the point of negotiating a treaty that doesn't have the people's interests at heart?  You can't just say ""The US Gov is doing it and they have the US Citizens interest at heart""--the whole point of the US Constitution is that citizens of the USA do not trust people in positions of power, and want to make sure those people's interests are aligned with the interests of the population without needing to believe in their benevolence.  Every US publicly traded company, for example, holds their shareholders and executives interests far above those of their employees.  So giving the companies I mentioned the ability to ""work deals with those jobs on the table"" doesn't sound like it is much of a benefit to those (far greater in number) employees.  Do those people get a chance to affect policy decisions too?"
Their product count is significantly lower than that of a Walmart or Conventional grocery store, this allows them to hire less people with higher pay and still keep the stores well maintained.  Costco choose to employ less ppl with higher pay but the trade off is that they hire less ppl.  all and all this is still great business practice.
This article is hot garbage.  Airlines have profit margins of 1% or less. Pilot shortages are a more a function of the regulation of licenses, not greedy companies hoarding loads of cash.  And the farming example? The farmers *have* hired employees. They're waiting on approval to enter the country.  If anything, the examples the author provides advocate less regulation, not more. I guess you can spin facts how you want, but here, all you have to do is write the right headline and get upvotes from people who don't read the article.
449 of the 500 companies in the S&amp;P 500 used 54% of their earnings to buy back shares for over $2 trillion.   Rather than invest in development, capital, human capital, bigger dividends, they're repurchasing shares to boost their EPS and increase share value in the short term. Why is this an issue? Because it shows that these companies are uneasy about the long term. It stunts growth. Doesn't have to be research, simply expansion or rewarding employees/shareholders. Employees of the company receive no benefits and bagholders may make a quick buck short term, but suffer long. Execs of the company however get fat AF checks for hitting target ratios and price. Stock buybacks enable this.
"The shortage is of capable people willing to work for peanuts.  I am in the tech industry, but my schooling is in electrical engineering.  It was always, and remains my belief, that IT degrees are bullshit.  You can teach someone to recite the manual, rattle off specifications, memorize protocols, and even to calculate design equations in telecom inside his head, but you can't teach someone to actually implement those things.  You can teach information, but that won't give someone who doesn't naturally have the right thought processes and mental organization, to do the actual work.  I started an IT business during high school, which I am sure isn't too uncommon in the Reddit community.  I've had people think they were ""hooking me up"" or doing me a favor by offering me some $50000-60000 per year job working full time as staff IT for a company.  I don't generally tell people how insulting the offer is, or how I made almost that during my last year of high school.  There is no way I would consider taking a job that paid less than $125000 per year.  Even that would be contingent on there being enough time left for me to continue running my other businesses even if I had to hire employees to do more of the work than I have them doing now.  There are also a lot of complete idiots who somehow tend to easily get jobs in the field, which seriously lowers prospective employers' opinions of what they will probably get when they hire someone.  It's a huge headache with these bozos constantly giving my industry a black eye."
Funny how this thread is full of people saying stores should pay the absolute minimum they can and fire anyone that mouths of about it, while at the same time full of people shocked that they don't get good service there.  Here's a pointer, if you want people who care about their jobs, don't shop at businesses that thrive off of the suffering of their own employees.
The stock market is generally a long term investment platform.  The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value.  Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value.  We saw this regularly  in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust.  Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential.  Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days.  As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up.   Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks.  there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades.  For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price.  This is not happening with face book.  Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market.  These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock.  The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself.  I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits.
"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's ""highly compensated"" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via ""non-discrimination testing"". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of ""highly compensated employees"" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE.
&gt; There were a lot of companies that cut full time jobs in favor of part time.  1) No, [employers didn't cut back full-time employees although some did cut hours of part-time employees to get them under 30 hours](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/).  2) My objection is not about part-time but that the ACA would not somehow make your company drop insurance.  Your company dropped it's plan because it chose to.
That argument seems pretty false.  Companies will compete and try to always undercut each other.  I have never seen one actual study where prices rose on par when the minimum wage was increased.  They of course will increase but it will still be below what is costs now.  Mainly it takes money from the larger corporations and gives it to the people.  I do agree prices will rise, but since TONS of companies already hire illegals where are we going to be hit?  Produce will be slightly from stock boys who dont make that much.  For the most part all menial jobs are always using illegal workers.