vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I'm not OP, but I think a very basic example would be brand choice. Every day people choose to buy cheaper products over greener products. Styrofoam cups still exist because people buy them. Companies get as big as Walmart because people shop there.  If people really have a shit, they could simply make different choices in a capitalistic system that would then promote small local business and sustainable practices. But people choose lower prices every single time, without regard to the inequalities or environmental destruction their choices promote.
Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples.  It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises.  Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure.  Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship.
The P/E is currently 20. In hindsight, it's easy to see that when it was 50, not long ago, it was very overpriced. They were not adding customers or increasing revenue as they should have to sustain that P/E level.  Probability? I suppose this can happen with any company that has both a high P/E and non-diversified business. Why did you think this company was large and stable? Their marketing blunders simply pricked the bubble level pricing these guys had.  (Disclaimer - I am actually a happy customer of Netflix. For $8/mo, I get 6-8 DVDs and neither spend gas nor time to get them. Others who grew used to free streaming feel otherwise)
Me too it all started when I ordered a number five and they said medium or large. I asked which size was the price on the picture. Lady said Small...   When I am buying things off the menu, price is one of the two factors of my decision. I complained, they could not see the problem...
"&gt; Yea that's all fine and dandy if you have the resources to afford not having a reliable income while you take the risk of being entrepreneurial.   Start small.  No one said you need to rent out a floor of an office building in Manhattan and hire 25 people right off the bat.  Check out this [20 year old's story](http://www.reddit.com/r/smallbusiness/comments/2ahuun/how_i_started_my_business_now_im_moving_on/) in /r/smallbusiness.  He started a janitorial company with $500 and sold for $670k a few year later.  Instead of just *clearly* being jealous of the rich, why not create something?  This kid was obviously tired of being told ""find a job"" and he went out a created his own empire.  This is what we should be teaching kids in school.  Instead of telling them to go pay $200k for a worthless degree in liberal arts then telling him to cross his fingers to find a ""job"".  Fuck that mindset.  Fuck finding a ""job"".  Go make jobs."
Wow, your experience is definitely not unique. A close friend of 8 years complained about his medium sized company struggling to gain market share. The company I worked for at that time had a product that could dovetail with his product with some effort. I told him about this idea, and the ball was set rolling. I  had set up a small company to act as supplier of the integration service between these two companies, with all effort on my side being done at own cost, and the continuous integration cost being carried by my company.  The friend found a way to steal most of my source code, and got a developer to complete the integration system, while cancelling the contract with me on ungrounded accusations.  I realised that warnings from other friends about this guy's integrity proved accurate, and I decided to cut all ties since no money had been made.  If this had happened after I had quit my full-time job as was the plan and started depending on this business for income my family would have lost everything we had.    OP has the core truth of it: &gt; you may feel that your company is different from all of those other companies that have problems or interpersonal differences. Don't assume that. Trust your partners, have high standards for your performance and the performance of each individual in the group, but pay attention to protecting yourself along the way. Verbal agreements or goodwill may mean something to you but don't count on everybody else holding themselves to that standard.
"I believe you are missing a complete aspect of figuring out price points. You completely disregarded how price affects ""perceived quality"". People generally assume that higher price means higher quality. Pricing too low will give many people the impression that at that price it couldn't be very good, and don't buy the product as a result.  Crown Royal became Crown Royal after being a mediocre brand. They didn't change the way they made whiskey, instead they raised the price by 400%. Now it was viewed as a premium product, simply because of it's price.  While I don't want to knock your view of Tycoon games, but it's just a game with one point of view. It's not the real world. It's just what a programmer thought would make the game interesting. I sure wouldn't consider it to be some source of great business wisdom.  Look at what really happens taking video game consoles and games as an example. They start at a high price point. This makes it prestigious to own. When that price point becomes saturated, meaning everyone that is going to buy at the price already has, they lower the price a little and do the same. Then when everyone that can afford that price has bought one they lower it again. Eventually it gets to a point where almost anyone can afford.  This style taps the market for every price point and is much better model than the one you suggest. There are many things that use this model, like car sales. The end of a model year is the time to buy because everyone that was willing to pay the full price already had and they need to move them off the lot to make room for new cars that will have a higher price point.  So I don't buy into your theory at all.  EDIT: Grammatical error."
Small price for the government to pay when you are competing to attack a company that will create tens of thousands of jobs and billion in economic activity.  Are you suggesting we let them go to Michigan or Alabama or Texas. If they did go, not only would we miss out on those tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investments but we wouldn't realize any of that sales tax revenue anyways!
They are only introducing downward pressure on prices to drive competition out of business.  Prime operates at a loss.  They've been vocal about this strategy: they plan to corner the ecommerce market, push competition out of business and then they'll inevitably raise prices.
If you'll actually read the quote, they've invested substantial amounts of money in modernization, including route optimization, machine automation, and facility consolidation. The only thing antiquated about their approach is that they remain attached to an arbitrary mandate that forces them to be inefficient because congress knows nothing about logistics and operates purely on the grounds of sentimentality, not the best interest of their constituents.  Well, uniform pricing is part of their mandate. Price, wage, and quality uniformity are staples of marxist dogma.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#cite_note-3  &gt; The USPS is legally obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality.  There is no compelling reason why they should pay the same and charge the same across the US. The labor market varies accross the US, as do conditions that affect timely delivery. Pretending that this is not a fact is the exact reason why the postal service is repelling customers and posting multibillion dollar deficiets every year, at our expense.
Its one of the main points.  Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS.  Its also completely unnecessary:  Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold.  Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made.  The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation.  Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society.  Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.
&gt;When a Business entity is so large and powerful its failure threatens the safety and well being of the nation it is based / present in.  Don't you think we should approach this issue from the other side and say that the government should be enforcing these restrictions pre-emptively? In other words, firms should be prevented from attaining 'too big to fail' status. It seems a bit controversial to me for a government to go in after the fact and forcefully break up a private company. Where was the government beforehand?  &gt;The government should be able to forcefully break up the company into smaller groups, or instate laws and regulations that promote competition and allow smaller businesses the ability to compete.  How is management distributed across the new entities? How is intellectual property distributed? It is easy to say we should break these companies up, but actually breaking them up is a nightmare. Each of the new companies will need a duplicate management structure, and invariably they will have to source outside resources to fill these roles. If one firm retains the more valuable management then it has an advantage over the other firm. The same goes for intellectual property, or any other rare or unique assets. Shareholders will not receive the same dividend yield from their shares because the two companies once split will lose out on some economies of scale. Should the government compensate shareholders for the lost value of their shares? If not, why not and how is this different from the government directly seizing assets of the shareholders even though they have not committed any crime? Bear in mind nearly every American citizen owns shares in these companies through their retirement funding and so any loss in market cap will affect normal people, not just rich investors.  &gt;National preservation.  Once again, I think we need to be asking a different question: how did these firms come to exist in the first place? Its one thing to turn around and plead to the government to break the firms up but it as the government itself which was asleep on the job and allowed the firm to reach this point anyway. Should we really trust the government (who let the firms come into being) to break them up again?
Sell a product of $4 w/ COGS of $10, corner the market by driving out competition for a majority in market share, raise the price or squeeze supplier's margins by either lowering BOM or delaying terms from 30 to 360, then voila, big sustainable business.     You must be delusional if you think Amazon did otherwise. They used the above strategy for both their retail and their AWS. Their Lab126 did the exact same thing.  You clearly showed you don't understand either growth equity or competition.
"For a lot of small beef farmers (""hobby"" farms like ours) the price of fertilizer is already high enough that it's proving effective in maintaining or possibly reducing costs.  The most successful examples I've seen have equal or higher carrying capacity (cattle per acre) for less monetary cost by moving to ""older"" methods of grazing.  The tradeoff is that rotation takes more time to do than open field &amp; hay grazing.  There's also lower capital equipment costs; tractor, mower, and bailer are the major equipment for a small producer so being able to do without or use smaller ones is good.  And less maintenance on that equipment.  We're not experts by any means, and our farm isn't anywhere near its maximum carry capacity, but every large/full-time farmer I know that has done it has had good results."
Email marketing has numerous advantages to the business.  It's is very growable for any business. You can send marketing messages at once to thousands of clients, which helps you to save time. If you want to Email marketing gainesville fl for your small business, then you can visit our website. We will provide you many internet marketing campaigns. Our service packeges are  less expensive compared to other marketing company.
The market sets prices and the way JP Morgan or any other bank or organization determines the price it's willing to deal in would be proprietary business information.
There are, if by competitors you mean Internet providers who can offer gigabit service at a reasonable price. It just takes an incredible amount of initial capital investment to get started and likely face NIMBY bullshit red tape and sweetheart legacy deals, so most if these competitors are small in scope. For example, I have service from a provider that offers gigabit service, Condo Internet here in Seattle. But even they are limited to only certain buildings, because they just don't have much capital to expand yet.
There is a price mechanism, your monthly bill is based on your Mbps, and you can choose if you want faster speed, and pay for it. This pricing mechanism will limit bandwidth use because as bandwidth gets more strained the price will go up. Net neutrality is about treating all data going through those pipes equally, so that the virtual market is not monopolized by the few large companies that can pay for accessing customers.
As it consolidates further, the *above-average* person can no longer enter it, and when it gets to a certain point, no one can enter it. That has harmed the economy because people have stopped ""playing the game"" because they know they can't win. They can't compete with the big boys. Now I don't know what to do about this, but my observation is that this has accelerated in the past 30 years. I think that technology has accelerated it, but I also think that tax code and lack of anti-trust enforcement has also accelerated it. I would put my bet on tax code as the #1 culprit - tax code has made it attractive for people to try and earn tens of millions of dollars per year - there is truth to the conservative claim that ""if the tax rates are too high, people will not work as hard"" - that's not necessarily a bad thing though. Markets are driven by demand, and at any point in time, they have a finite demand - a total size. If there is $15 million worth of demand for hardware in a region, that demand can either be satisfied by one massive global corporation, or by 15 $100k small businesses (or by 30 $50k small businesses). There can be an advantage to one massive global corporation - cheaper prices, higher quality - but there can also be a downside, which is eventually higher prices, less innovation, and even lower quality - plus the downside of the elimination of opportunity for the 30 people who would serve that demand if the massive corporation did not exist, opportunities which turned over every so often due to businesses closing due to retirement or even incompetence. I do not think that tax code stifles innovation though, because people innovate for passion, not for money. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple when the top tax rate was 70%. They did it because they wanted to make computers, not because they wanted to make money. I think that a high tax rate would stifle the relentless pursuit of more dollars by using existing dollars to consolidate sectors."
&gt; I don't think you quite understand how the software services model works. Most software co utilizes the Amazon model for growth until they reached a critical point either by market size or squeezing out other players.  Uber is not a software company, regardless of what they claim. They are a taxi company that uses software for dispatch. They have zero innovation that allows for improved economies of scale.   Amazon's approach and a generic software startup's approach do not necessarily overlap, but they do have similarities.   &gt; Your unit economic talks works only when bootstrapping and maybe debt financing. For companies that can grow using equity financing its certainly not the case. See: Tesla.  That's completely false. If your product costs $10 but people will only buy it for $4, you will never make money regardless of how large you grow. In fact, the bigger you are, the more money you will ultimately lose. That's Uber's current conundrum. It doesn't resemble Tesla or Amazon's approaches whatsoever.   If Uber raises prices sufficiently to achieve profitability, other entrants will continue to take market share and/or their customers will abandon them for the bus. Transportation is a commodity good, as evidenced by airlines and their utter lack of profitability over the decades.
"Because I could hire some of my workers on minimum wage as well and reduce both my costs and bid prices to maintain the same margins. Everyone talks about ""at scale"" and point out the costs of ketchup packets when you're selling millions upon millions of products per year, but they forget it's just as proportional for a small business. Maybe if the model doesn't work ""at scale"" without punishing our social welfare system for a corporations benefit, it shouldn't exist."
"You'd be mistaken to this there is any morality involved in (most) corporations - neither positive nor negative; running a business is amoral. Some business missions have a moral intent - such as pharmaceuticals, health organization, etc. - but all have an amoral underbelly.  It's fairly simplistic - the purpose of a business is to produce a profit. At some point, all successful, well functioning businesses will work down their list of ways to produce a profit - after they've established market share, a lasting brand, customer loyalty, finances well in the black - and eventually look towards capital preservation. In most bodies with a large monetary wealth, capital preservation becomes a key focus (in other words, once you master the art of making money, you then need to master the art of keeping it).  Thus the ability to then focus on these things. To continue to just pay taxes is like running an efficient, but leaky ship. The more you preserve, the longer you'll be around and the more power you'll yield to stick around.   This last point is also important to keep in mind - unlike you or I - a company will basically last forever (well at least until society collapses). You or I are only here until we die - and whatever wealth we have we may try to preserve for our kids or next of kin. A corporation is always here, the people in the corporation &amp; it's owners change hands, but the corporation survives. Frankly any business that isn't aiming to make a profit, is either going to fail quickly or is by definition a ""non-profit"".  Here is where I would believe the government plays a balancing role - to reign in the power of corporations (lest they rival their own). But, any good corporation will handle that problem as well (Regulatory capture, anyone?).  Also, consider that for the most wealthy among us, it's probably not about the money anymore. It's now probably about the game. This is certainly where the psychopaths get that manic edge on the rest of us."
I didn't  say...  &gt;If a business cannot afford to provide its workers a livable wage, it is a failure as a business.   You did. I just wondered if you had any education or experience to back that up or of you're just spouting off on a subject you don't understand.   You've answered my question. Thanks.
ok...  That's not a risk of making an investment. That's the risk of an investment failing.  My point is, the workers ARE actually the ones taking the biggest risk - their lives, health, family and homes DEPEND on the companies employing them. And if those companies fail, they need a financial cushion to get them into the next job just like investors need some investments to make a profit to cushion the ones that don't. But as it stands now, the investors are getting every pillow in the land and the workers are left to hit solid rock as they fall. They aren't getting a comparable share of the profits they are making - not nearly enough to provide any sort of savings scheme anyway - when the companies and investors are rolling in profits. And that's NOT the way to a healthy society.
"I agree with you that this is the ""human"" reaction, but supposedly the people running these companies are supposed to be amazing businessmen, hence the reason they're making beaucoup bucks on top of billion dollar businesses.  I've run smaller, yet still million dollar businesses before, and while there have been tough times where we've had to take damage control measures before, we sure didn't do that while completely ignoring the cause of the problem, nor the future as it was likely to be.  To do otherwise is simply myopic, as the music industry is finally beginning to find out."
It’s Uber’s game to lose because they went the luxury route first and accepted the money on promise of growth. They’re challenged with maintaining that growth which has pushed them to grow and diversify their business and is forcing them to find a way to automate their car service. It’s caused them to become the shitty company they are- bulldozing over laws/regulation/own employees.  Lyft started at the same time but were coming from a different angle taxi and scale up from there.  The old way of starting a business was to start small and grow.  The new way is to have an idea get a crap load of money and promise/deliver growth. The first is not necessarily the sexiest but if they keep growing and keep their nose clean they just have to wait for their competition to fall on their face.
&gt;These people are being held below a  livable standard by otherwise failed business models.  Please explain who is being held down in this situation.  An employment agreement is voluntary.  Wages are set by supply and demand.  &gt;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.  So you want to violently intervene and kill off the livelihoods of people because they voluntarily work for a business you deem too unprofitable to exist?  The jobs will be replaced by machines and the people whose jobs you killed now live 100% on the dole, likely forever.  Most of the people affected will be minorities.  I can't imagine a more heinous and racist act of economic violence.  &gt;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.  Individuals who would rather see perfectly able bodied people 100% on the dole rather than providing for themselves should be ashamed.  Seriously, fuck you and fuck your violent and racist policies.
&gt; He risked a lot in the beginning...  You avoided my question.  Your position is that entrepreneurs deserve great reward because they take on great risk. I disagree. When failure means moving out of your mansion and into a suburban neighborhood, I think that hardly qualifies as risk. Compare that to a single mom who only makes enough money to pay for food or heat. That seems like risk.  Now consider President Trump.  His companies filed for bankruptcy four times but he was able to insulate his wealth from those failures. Is that really risk or just being rich?