vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
(the average person doesn't care nor are they affected by how much their employer spends in healthcare) It may be true that the average person doesn't care how much their employer spends on healthcare, but it's not true that we aren't affected.  From an employer's perspective, healthcare, wages, and all other benefits are part of the cost of having an employee.  When healthcare goes up, it increases the total employee cost.   Employers can handle this in several ways.  They could reduce the amount they give investors (as dividends, stock buybacks, etc.).  But then the stock is worth less and they have to make up the money somewhere else.  They could pass the expense on to customers.  But then the loss in business can easily cost more than the revenue raised.  They can cut wages or other benefits.  Then the average person will start caring...and might get a different job.   (I found this article saying that 12M households spend >=50% of income on rent, so I'm assuming that an even greater number spend more than the recommended 30%, which means rent should be weighted as high as it is in CPI.) According to the census, that's only about 10% of households.  It also notes that 64.4% of households are owner-occupied.  They don't pay rent.  The CPI makes up a number called owner's equivalent rent for those households to get to the higher percentage.   The CPI is intended for things like wages.  This makes it a good choice for a cost of living adjustment, but it doesn't quite represent the overall economy.  And for investments, it's the broader economy that matters.  Household consumption is less important.   What the Fed says.
"The American Express Centurion Card (the ""Black Card"") is for extremely wealthy people who like to show off how much they spend. There are no cash back benefits like you have with traditional rewards cards. The benefits are all geared toward spending more money, not saving money.   For example, the benefits include a personal travel agent, personal shoppers at high end stores, elite status with airlines and hotels, etc.  There are some benefits that you could put a dollar value on. For example, first class upgrades and complementary companion airline tickets. If you like to fly first class and you do a lot of flying, it is conceivable that you could come out ahead.  However, someone that does that much flying has probably already achieved elite frequent flyer status and enjoys regular upgrades without the Black card. In my opinion, it is pretty difficult to justify the initiation and annual fees of this card as anything but a luxury."
&gt; That said, the non-profit also was likely to enroll about 1,000 students at nominal tuition levels, whereas the for-profit is likely to enroll tens of thousands, with dozens of staff doing nothing but making sure their students get the largest possible student loans.  I get what you are saying, the non-profit isn't causing as much long-term damages as these for-profit Johnny-come-latelys. Has anyone taken the numbers and really crunched them?  I feel like the problem is the perverse incentives created by the student loan system. There isn't anything inherently wrong with for-profit colleges, but there are issues under the current system because of the way we extend credit to students. Anytime credit is available, the big, corrupt banks are not far behind.  I say get rid of the loan programs and see how these for-profit schools adjust. I think they would probably be able to adjust more quickly and possibly even get better than the non-profit schools, due to their lack of legacy contracts and traditions.
I don't think you thought this through.  What ownership and profit motive will you assign to clean air/water, lead free paint/water/gasoline?  What will privatizing and creating profit motive in such public goods look like?  If private roads are so great, why didn't private institutions come up with the national highway system?  If all roads become private, at what point does the supposed benefit of privatization get overtaken by decrease in network effect that public roads provided?  Will you trust private security to enforce our laws?  How will you privatize the justice system?  In your view, what are the benefits of the profit motive behind private prisons?
Why don't you like unions? An IBEW electrician is guaranteed to have the skills and have gone through the apprenticeship and journeyman programs. Its a safety and skills thing.   Unions also fought for and got us a 40 hour work week and overtime pay. Benefits and disability insurance.    Perhaps there isn't much of a need currently for unions because of all the federal and local statues that mandate worker protection... but currently politicians are rolling back those protections. The way things are going there is going to be a major need to unions in another generation... And the work to get those benefits will be that much harder.   Police are pepper spraying old grandmas and people sitting down not doing anything. Imagine how many heads will be cracked when people fight for a 40 hour work week again?
&gt;Correct. So you feel the proper response is to pepperspray people?   Perhaps you can watch the long version of what happened in [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&amp;feature=colike). Feel free to skip around if you want.  The point is, the police made arrests, the children were blocking them and the children were warned. They were warned so many times it's their own stupidity that got them pepper sprayed. Empty threats are empty. Beats a night stick to the head.  I am worried about the bloodbath that might occur when we have to fight off the black bloc idiots that want more free stuff.  &gt;what prevents a race to the bottom with wages and benefits if people don't collectively bargain  What prevents public sector employees from outpacing wages and benefits of the private sector due to collective coercion? They're already doing it.  We cannot pay our debts by creating government jobs. We cannot continue to afford COLAs in a down economy, let alone the lifetime benefits some of them get. What happens when they collapse the system out of their own stupid greed?  That seems to be the goal of many on the left.  edit: Not sure if OSHA is actually getting cuts, but EEOC is expanding and NLRB is really screwing things up.
"Statistics are often tough to grasp. Specifically, we need to understand the exact context and implication of the data and how it's presented. An example - I look at real estate sales data for a given town, and find that for   the last 10 years, the average sale price has dropped, 3%/yr, every   year for these 10. What can I conclude?  Now, to your data. You don't mention age.  When we look at this chart, combined with the next -  The picture, while still bleak, is at least more clear. Nearly half of pre-retirees have no ""retirement"" savings. If that lower half is running close to zero, the average for the upper half is nearly twice the reported $164K.  Even now, there are important bits going unaddressed. People who have had no access to retirement accounts, either through lack of company availability, or self-employeds who just ignored them, may very well have saved outside of retirement-labled accounts. You can see these graphs are tracking only 401(k), IRA, and Keogh accounts.  Last, social security for the $30K earner will replace nearly half their working income at retirement, almost 65% if they work till 70. I don't advocate counting on SS for the entirety of one's retirement income, but the way SS benefits are structured, replacement benefits are far higher (as a percent) for lower wage workers, as the system intended.  To conclude, median alone is too small a data point to be useful, in my opinion. This kind of information presented in these charts is far more preferable to get a fuller picture."
"Whole life is life insurance that lasts your whole life.  Seriously. Since the insurance company must make a profit, and since they know they will always pay out on a whole life policy, whole life tends to be very expensive, and has lower ""death"" benefits than a term policy. Some of these policies are ""paid-up"" policies, meaning that they are structured so that you don't have to pay premiums forever.  But what it amounts to is that the insurance company invests your premiums, and then pays you a smaller ""dividend,"" much like banks do with savings accounts. Unless you are especially risk-averse, it is almost always a better decision to get an inexpensive term policy, and invest the money you save yourself, rather than letting the insurance company invest it for you and reap most of the benefits. If you are doing things properly, you won't need life insurance your whole life, as retirement investments will eventually replace your working income."
"The article said $65,000 (rounds numbers imply an estimate) was the original amount she borrowed. However she isn't on the hook for only $65,000. Her loans have interest and ***one*** of the loans had an 8% interest rate.   Let's ASSUME (for the purposes of this exercise to illustrate what compound interest can do to ""good debt"") that all of her loans are at 8% interest over a 30 year repayment period. Her total payments over the course of the 30 years will amount to $172,000. Yes that's a big number. $107,000 going to INTEREST and $65,000 going towards the original loan balance.   More realistically her loans are probably in the 6-8% interest range (since interest rates were higher 20 years ago) so the amount is a little smaller, but the bulk of her payments will be for paying interest not paying down her loan balance. She really couldn't afford to borrow for a master's degree to make so little in a high cost of living area."
"&gt;Skinned knees will become life threatening  Not true at all.  Antibiotics ASSIST the body's immune system. Standard antiseptic practice can prevent, and a healthy individual's immune system can fight off the vast majority of infections.  Now the problem is that places like hospitals are not only breeding grounds, but are often becoming endemic community repositories of super-infective antibiotic resistant bacteria; so if the kid with the skinned knee goes to the Emergency Room... then he's in store for a life-threatening problem.  As to the viability of things like hip surgeries, they are already a problem -- the solution will be to separate that kind of ""elective"" surgery to a different location (probably an outpatient/overnight-only surgical center) away from the normal ""hospital"".  The trend of rolling ALL medical care in an area into one big building/facility (combining clinic, emergency room, surgical, long term care, etc) -- has actually been a big (but seldom talked about) source of the problem.  The benefits of doing that are actually minimal, and the detrimental effects far outweigh them."
As sdg said, the consensus is that the CPP is pretty solid.  An actuarial report is submitted to Parliament every three years, and it's worth getting the numbers from that report so you know where your CPP contributions are invested.  You may think there's more risk in CPP's portfolio than they let on.  Either way, your own savings and investments are the best defense against inadequacy of the CPP.  But you should be careful, as the CPP mostly invests in the same stuff the retail investor does - equity and fixed income.  So the typical investor will be exposed to the risks as the CPP fund. However, CPP is not the only source of retirement income for Canadians.  There is also the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, and they are funded differently from CPP.  CPP benefits are funded by returns from the investment fund, as well as contributions.  GIS and OAS are paid out of the Government of Canada's revenue each year.  In my opinion, those programs are more vulnerable than CPP as they could just be legislated out of existence in tough economic times.  (However, I also see that as unlikely because the elderly are a pretty powerful block of voters.)
"Is a student loan a type of loan or just a generic name used to refer to a loan for someone who is going back to school? A student loan from the federal government is a specific type of loan used for education purposes (i.e. attending college). They have guidelines associated with them that are very flexible as compared to a student loan from a private bank. If a student loan is a different type of loan, does it only cover the costs of going to the school? Every student at a university has a ""budget"" or the ""cost of attendance"". That includes direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are ones billed directly to you (i.e. tuition, room and board - should you choose to live on campus, and associated fees). Indirect costs are such things like books, travel expenses (if you live out of state), and personal things. Direct costs are controlled by the school. Indirect costs are estimated. The school will usually conduct market research to determine the costs for indirect items. Some students go above that, and some go below. For example, transportation is an indirect cost. A school could set that at $500. There are students who will be above that, and some below that. If you choose not to live on campus, then rent and food will become an indirect cost. Student loans can cover up to 100% of your budget (direct and indirect added together). If your total budget is $60,000 (tuition, room and board, transportation, books, supplies, etc.) Then you are able to borrow up to that amount ($60,000). However, because your budget is both direct and indirect costs, you will only be billed for your direct costs (tuition, etc.). So if your direct costs equal $50,000 and your student loan was certified for $60,000, then you will get that $10,000 back in the form of a refund from the school. That does not mean you don't have to pay it back - you still do. But that money is meant for indirect costs (i.e. books, rent - if you're not staying on campus, etc.).
Most people are under educated on the health benefits of certain foods and the drawbacks of others. I for one love the organic Capri suns, they taste way better! Natural fruit juices destroy these artificial flavors all day. The natural sweetness and sugars still maintain that energy inducing taste.
Usually if the property is part of a strata then the water rates get sent to the owner each quarter to pay and the usage for the whole complex is paid by the strata. So in this type of situation your tenant would not have to pay any water usage. If for some reason, as you mentioned, your unit, although part of a strata complex, is individually metered and you receive a water bill for both water rates and water usage, then the tenant would be liable to pay the water usage portion. This can usually be arranged by either giving the tenant a copy of the water bill with the amount of usage payable, or organising with the water company to separately sending the tenant the usage part of the bill. As you had a real estate agent (managing agent) looking after your property at the time when the water usage was not being paid by the tenant, it would have been their responsibility to either recoup this money from the tenant or organise with the water compony to send the usage part of the bill to the tenants. That is part of the service you were paying them for. You may need to check with Fair Trading in your state to find out who you should be going after for this money, the tenant or the real estate agent. In NSW you have 6 months after the lease has ended to take the tenants to tribunal to recoup owing money, I don't know how long it is after end your agreement with the real estate agent to pursue them.  The case may be that you start with the tenant and if that doesn't work then try with the real estate agent. Of course you may want to contact your old tenants first to see if they are reasonable and agree to back pay the water usage (after you showing them copies of the water bills). The tribunal will ask if you have tried to mediate the matter first anyway. Then there is the matter of how much the water usage amounts to and whether it is worth chasing both the tenants and the real estate agent, paying the tribunal application fees and taking time off work to attend the tribunal.
There are those who are knowledgable in real estate who offer rules of thumb: Don't pay more that 50X the rent for the house. Here, $972 x 50 is $48600. Assume half the rent goes to expenses. So from $972, you net $486, and after that mortgage, you have $111 in profit. Zillow usually assumes 20% down, here $20K. So you are seeing a 6.67% return on your 20K. (Plus appreciation and principal paydown.)  For the record, I just bought a 3 family, under renovation now. Expecting total cost to be $160K, and total rent $2500. I missed ratio a by a bit, but $1250 to go toward a $120K mortgage works out fine. $550 profit/mo on the 25% down ($40K). (By the way, a turnover of tenants can cost (a) a month of no rent, (b) a cost to the real estate agent, if you use one, and the cost to paint/repair. This is generally considered 10%. So if the 50% of rent seemed high, here's 10 of it.)
The clusterfuck you mention was a real estate bubble built with the full backing of bankers. The problem is that real estate bubbles are very profitable to selected few, so there is a huge incentive in building them.   I do wish some economist would be able to come up with new way of doing business in which we would not always build these bubbles that inevitably will burst.   I do feel bad for all the bagholders in spain who were no longer able to sell the real estate they bought for higher amount of money as all the others before them.    It is ridicilous that after all the bubbles in history we still do business like this.
&gt; There are also the people that want a crash to happen since they missed the boat on the real estate boom.  This is a huge factor.  I don't know the Canada market, but I would be cautious if prices are too far out of line with rents.  That's what happened in the US, but it wasn't just that.  You need a few more ingredients.  like Adjustable rate mortgages with a low down payment.
"I'm in a similar situation, but I live in a state that doesn't allow mortgagees to ""walk away"" without recourse. I would consider a short sale or otherwise abandoning the property if: At the end of the day, real estate is an investment, and you don't realize gains or losses until you close the position. The ""ra, ra"" crowd that thought that real estate was going to boom forever in 2006 was just as wrong as the ""bad news bears"" crowd that thinks that real estate will never recover either.  Investments rise and fall. Many people who bought houses in the 1980's boom (recall the S&L crisis) were underwater for years until prices started rising in the mid-90's. You haven't lost money until you realize that loss."
I'm not too sure. you'll need to open up new shops, so real estate, staff, computers, bank accounts, that's not even getting into farming weed. It'll definitely take a bite out of other vices for sure though.
Nah, this is a fluff piece designed to get people excited about real estate.  A good rule of thumb is that if a piece has a National Association of Realtors quote in it, it's good odds that that it's trying to promote buying and/or selling real estate and trying to get people excited about real estate.  If there's actually a shortage of supply relative to demand, which is what matters, I'd expect to see Case-Schiller housing price index increases (not just median sales price increases, which I see quoted a bit, as those are affected by what type of house is selling in larger numbers).  Let's go back and look at [YOY Case-Schiller for Los Angeles](http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----).  Yup, looks like Los Angeles has seen a 4.8% drop over the course of the last year in the index.  Not exactly the sign of a booming housing market.
No, there is no linkage to the value of real estate and inflation. In most of the United States if you bought at the peak of the market in 2006, you still haven't recovered 7+ years later. Also real estate has a strong local component to the price. Pick the wrong location or the wrong type of real estate and the value of your real estate will be dropping while everybody else sees their values rising. Three properties I have owned near Washington DC, have had three different price patterns since the late 80's. Each had a different starting and ending point for the peak price rise.  You can get lucky and make a lot, but there is no way to guarantee that prices will rise at all during the period you will own it.
Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active  participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate  operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now.  Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role.  There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes.
Wow that is really great that you have such an amazing organization.  Unfortunately I don't believe that I will get the financial support I need to start one up myself.  I was going to start a Kickstarter campaign but people on Reddit didn't even see it happening so I think I will keep dreaming for now.    I do have some rough ideas in mind and have looked into some real estate as well but the financial obstacle is something that will be too hard to come over.  Thanks so much for reaching out though.
More likely I think consumers will just slowly get use to buying things increasingly online. I don't see a resurgence of brick and mortar retail happening anytime soon. Real estate is just too valuable and getting more expensive every day