vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the ""12 million"" refers to? Do you mean ""total cost of animations created by the company in a year"" or? If so, ""12 million"" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the ""cost of plant"" - so, for a ""TV commercial production company"" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a ""film or TV-commercial production company"" is a bad example, it's not really a ""business"" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous ""film or TV-commercial production companies"" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000.
he was installed when the bottom was falling. He hadn't much to do with the Stock value plummeting. From what I recall he also took a $1 salary his first year in the position. Although, I'm not a big fan of this bank I will say that he has improved their outlook since he has been the head.
The price to earnings ratio is a measure of the company's current share price compared to the annual net earnings per share.  The other way to think about this is the number of years a company would take to pay back the share price if the earnings stay constant.  This ignores factors like inflation and can be used as an indicator of risk.  During the internet bubble many companies had P/E above 24 and no possible means of earning back the share prices that were inflated largely due to speculation. Most tools like Google Finance will list the P/E for a particular quote.
He employs financial advisors because he's good at making money. That sounds like what any smart person would do... so I'm still confused? He built his own brands, he created his own company's, and whether or not he had any financial advisors is completely irrelevant. You're accusing the man of being bad with money based on nothing more than a few articles you read where he spent money in ridiculous ways, and you also read that article that said he needed the money from the McGregor fight to pay the taxes from the Pacquiao fight... his current net worth is 340mil... that's not a number that many people can boast... these articles are just clickbait to get attention, which is only helping him make more money. Honestly I hate the guy, but I'm absolutely fascinated by everything about him.
"A paycheck is simply a check for your salary.  It's just like a rent check, or a birthday check, or a grocery check...  I've had ""paychecks"" that were personal checks from the owner of the business, I've had ones that are printed in the office I worked in and signed right there, and I've had paychecks that are printed through a third party company and mailed to me (my favorite, of course, is to forgo the ""paycheck"" entirely and get direct deposit :) ).  Really, they're all just checks. Although that's a little disingenuous, because banks are often slightly more trusting of paychecks.  However, this has little to do with it being a ""paycheck,"" per se, and more to do with the fact that they see you getting the same check for (roughly) the same amount on a regular basis; having seen you get a paycheck for the same amount from the same company for the last 12 months, there is less risk of the check bouncing or being returned unpaid, so you can often get banks to waive their hold policy and just give you the money."
Are you kidding me? There's only one reason. Greed. If CEOs pay their workers less they take more home for themselves. Period. There is no other reason.  It's wrong, because the front line workers are the ones who make the company work. They're the ones who earn 90% of the money. But they get 10% of the profits. It's crooked, and it's greedy, and that's all.
A company CAN hold on to money.  This is called retained earnings.  Not all money is due back to the owners (i.e. stockholders), but only the amount that the board of directors chooses to pay back in the form of dividends.  There is a lot more detail around this, but this is the simple answer to your question.
The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share.  In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company.  Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion.  On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible.  In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.
I feel sorry for the workers who are going to lose their jobs. I wonder how big of a bonus the scumbags in charge are going to make this year?   The new CEO was hired this year was paid a $1 million base salary, a $150000 signing bonus, $6 million in restricted stock.
Profit, by definition, is what you don't spend on other things.  They reinvested $3 billion into R&amp;D.   What an absolutely misleading, BS title.  If you want to say 3 billion out of 18 billion net income isn't  enough have at it.  But any journalist reporting on such things should know better.
&gt;It's my belief a CEO should take a base salary of no more than 50 times the MEAN worker's salary is  That's just not realistic.  You're not going to have the CEO of Walmart making 1 million dollars a year while somebody heading up a law firm makes 50 million dollars a year.
"Writers for tech publications get paid less than peanuts. In all likelihood, this guy received two similar press releases/pitches from PR firms and he was like ""oh look, a trend"" and did no further research because he had to crank out five more articles in one day (which he did) to make enough money to survive.      (Source: I am not this guy, but I was just like him for about eight years.)"
Once again. You're taking your finance experience and cross applying it. Very technical degrees like CS often require less gen Ed classes. UIC only allows for 50 gen Ed in their CS program compared to 60 in finance. Stop thinking the degree requirements and paths are the same. They're not.
As you're working, you and your spouse were probably born after 1935, so I'll assume that Marriage Allowance is relevant to you rather than Married Couple's Allowance. The allowance applies if your husband or wife earns less than the personal allowance in salary (£10,600/year), and less than £5,000/year in savings interest. For example it's likely this will apply if he or she's not working. Also, you need to be only a basic rate taxpayer, earning less than £42,385/year. In that case they can register online to transfer £1,060 of their personal allowance to you, which will reduce your tax bill by £212/year if you yourself earn more than £1,060 above the personal allowance. This will usually work by HMRC issuing a new tax code to your employer who will then automatically withhold less of your salary. You can't get your employer to do this directly, you have to go via HMRC. The allowance change will be effective as if from the start of the curren tax year in April 2015, so you will probably end up getting the proportion of the £212 that you could have had up till now (from April to August) back all at once in your next pay cheque, or possibly spread out over the rest of the tax year. Apart from that you'll get it spread out evenly over the year - i.e. about £17/month.
Oh my, you poor skilled worker being held down by the janitors, stock rooms workers, and retail workers of the world...  So, let me guess, you are saying we should probably pay people less than minimum wage because something something market value or something something that's all those lazy people are worth, right?  How about this, if a business can't afford to pay someone properly enough to survive, they don't deserve the labor. That may mean that the CEOs, shareholders, white collar, and skilled workers might have to take less pay so the guy at the bottom that is also needed to operate the company can afford to live without needing help from the government.
"Yes on taxes. It depends on the other point. As you already see from Ben's comment, if you're both very Western in your culture, you may want to consider Ben's advice because while you will save money, it may not be considered a healthy way to start a relationship.  Western culture tends to see marriage as more of a ""do it for love"" whereas other cultures may view marriage more pragmatically and take economics and finance as a major consideration. For instance, a friend of mine married his spouse and it was 100% pragmatic - considering taxes and laws, driving most of his family insane because ""it doesn't sound very loving"" (these were the exact words).  Unfortunately, this created tension later on because family on both sides kept telling both of them that the other didn't love the partner and they used how their marriage started as proof.  As surprising as it is to me (non-Western), many Americans are horrified at people marrying at the JOP or other pragmatic ways, even if it saves them thousands. Answering questions about relationships is very difficult because often the issue is less about money and more about culture.  If you're both from pragmatic cultures where economics and finance weigh strongly and you don't see possible issues with family (and really be honest on this point), then consider the financial advantages."
"Theres some major logic missing from this report, it didnt mention how technology is disrupting how everything is being distributed. As businesses become more efficient with technological advances and less dependent on human capital, then so must humans become more efficient and less dependent upon an expected level of income. Whats the demand to keep a human alive and well versus the demand for needing a well paid human laborer? If you are easily replacable, then your value to the company is simply cheap labor. Best example is Walmart, the wealthiest family, the largest employer whose many employees require gov assistance to live due to low wages. The only way this business could even exist is with assitance from the goverment to support its workers. So where do these tax subsidies come from? The article responded with a great point ""There will never be “piles and piles of valuable goods” laying around with no one to enjoy them."" Whoever said that has never been to Walmart with no money. I suppose there will always be ""someone around to enjoy them"" but will there also be less and less people who can afford to enjoy such things? Walmart has already shown what happens. This article points out the old ways of doing things economically but ignores the fact technology creates abundance, not scarcity. Were not currently using that abundance to directly improve humanity on a large scale level but rather the opposite to control supply or scarcity aka profits. When the demand to maintain &amp; control financial power overpowers the desire to care &amp; provide for your neighbor, then the rise of inequality and narcissistic options appear. This buying power is the component of influence to being able to survive very well or simply even remain alive. If my daily wage doesnt provide for my daily needs, then how can I use technology to stay alive? How efficient can we all become before we start to share in the abundance of life together?"
"Where to start ?! re-unionization of workforce, more regulation of financial industries, incentivate banks into lending money, de-cartelisation, re-structuring higher education, closing tax loop-holes, raise corporate tax on profits, government incentive tech-industries ...  And most important undo American middle/low-classes [“temporarily embarrassed millionaires in waiting""](http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/americas-inequality-nightmare) psychology."
From my limited experience, I've never had trouble finding a job that paid more than minimum. Usually, the lowest I've seen for menial work is 8. Granted, that's still not good, but it may be a sign businesses are prepared to handle a minimum increase.
"Oh look, exactly what technology folks have been saying for a while now!  ""They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it,"" Cappelli says. ""And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay.""  Wanted, graybeard with 20 years programming experience in obscure languages on expensive and rare systems. Starting pay $25k, expected to work 60 hours a week and be oncall all the time."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ubs.com/microsites/intellectual-capital/en/articles/2017/employer-tech-bill.html) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; At the same time that computer-based transactions are rising in importance, US companies are dedicating less and less of their investment spending to computers.  &gt; Instead, an increasingly large share of investment spending is being dedicated to non-technology investment.  &gt; If companies rely on employees to provide some of the technology they need to do their jobs, then distinguishing investment from consumer spending becomes less helpful.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z7etk/why_you_may_be_footing_your_employers_tech_bill/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~207429 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **investment**^#1 **spend**^#2 **company**^#3 **data**^#4 **technology**^#5"
"even though they're only asking for 1/2 the money and have excellent credit that the mortgage company may not lend it to them if I'm over priced Yes. If the house's value, as determined by the appraisal, is less than the sale price, the bank will not finance the loan. Appraisals and the appraisal process have become much tighter since the Frannie and Freddie debacle. This fact is true regardless of amounts or credit history. Though this is happens somewhat rarely; typically if a seller and buyer agree to a price, this price is a reasonable value -- after all, that is nearly the definition of ""market value"". So, yes, it is true (and always true, for any financed purchase), but that shouldn't really affect your decision. If you try to sell for more than the appraisal, you will just lower the price to the appraised amount."
'In demand', partly due to the larger supply available.    Employers might prefer a math major, but when they are 5-10x more finance majors, they have to settle for the finance skillset + excel, rather than a proverbially higher IQ math major with greater modeling and math skills.
That laptop in Indy that cost 2k now costs 3k (absolutely not true, but lets roll with it.) . Healthcare too. 10k * 1.5 = 15k Total San Jose / mid-valley COL: 15k + 15k + 11k + 65k + 42k = 130k. So using high estimates for everything, Bob now spends 130k of his new 170k salary. **He now gets to save 40k, double what he did before**. He also now hopefully has a great name on his resume which will literally open doors, a RSU package which will refresh yearly, **making him earn 500k/yr within a decade**, and will be at the center of his industry. Keep in mind, this is only coming at this from the mindset of someone in tech. If I wasn't in tech, I would never, *ever*, ***ever*** consider moving to the valley unless I was bankrolling some other job. But for tech, the logic is there. I'm sorry if I upset you, but I've literally broken down my expenses and done all this math for my actual situation. Lets not even get started with the other perks. For a large tech company, which is a very realistic goal for someone decently good and easy to work with in tech, you get unlimited vacation, a free for all budget of 2k for training, free lunch and snacks, shuttle service if you live in main hubs (the city, etc), great weather, can ski and surf in the same day - all things you likely do not get in a midwest tech job.
"He's misunderstanding Buffett's argument, which is that all forms of investment compete, and so when interest rates give you guaranteed low returns, it makes sense for stocks to give you average low returns.  That implies *high* prices for current stocks, because your return on equities is the price tomorrow over the price today.  Buffett would likely agree with him that this implies slow growth in the future, though he may not want to say so for competitive reasons.  Historical P/E norms are a more wrong metric, because they don't capture any fundamental change that might have happened in the economy.  What's likely going on is a surplus of capital: as business becomes more efficient (i.e. generates more revenue with fewer workers), that excess cash flow becomes investable capital, but as it becomes more efficient (i.e. less of that revenue filters down to workers in the form of wages that they can spend on consumer goods), the amount of productive uses where that capital can be effectively deployed in income-generating activities declines.  More capital + fewer investable opportunities = higher supply + lower demand = the price of securities for the few areas of the economy that *are* doing well increases.  This is why you see insane valuations for tech companies.  If we do get a major economic crash, it will likely come from a Carlota Perez-style financial crisis, where all the money gets concentrated within emerging new industries focused on new technology, who can't sell their products because nobody else has any money.  We're on the path to that already, but it will likely take a decade or two to play out; there's still a lot of money left in the ""old economy"" which can be extracted.  Also, these style of financial crises usually are accompanied by war and a breakdown of the established political order, and so all bets are off anyway."
Realize that not everyone has the ability to save like that.  If someone can save money, that means they are being paid (slightly) more than they need to survive.  Many employers (too many) take that as a sign that they are over paying their workforce, and can easily replace them with people who get paid less, since they can also make it work by not setting anything significant aside.  A lot of these people are only making it work by relying on credit too.  It's easier than you might think to get trapped in a debt spiral, and a lot harder to get out when you cant take classes or even re-education courses to help you move up.
A true story, from a friend's company, one of the largest electronics company in the world.  The company decided that if the difference is less than $25,000, then ignore it. And went on to fire many people in accounting.  Six months later on, one old-timer found many many reports that show less than $25,000 difference.  Do you understand what happened here?
"&gt; But at least you admit they're paid better and you just don't ""like"" the field.  WTF? You completely misunderstood my point, you fucking dolt. I asserted tradesmen are paid better, but ignored the point, since it is somewhat transitory.   &gt; The millions of consulting and banking employees are humored that you think it'd be better for them to plunge toilets.  &gt; I'm a math/statistics major  THIS is the arrogant bullshit so rampant in the fucking industry that drives out talent, and leaves it a barren wasteland of under-educated assholes. You (apparently) haven't even fucking graduated yet. And you not only know how the world works, you're convinced you're too good for a significant portion of it.  &gt; Mine was &lt;10.  We are talking about the SEC conference, right? A bachelor's degree, right? Four years of that is $25K-$50K (depending) just in tuition, and it completely ignores books, or inflated housing, or opportunity cost. So WTF are you on? Less than 10K? Do you mean annually??  &gt; and your suggestion is to be a Carpenter instead.  It is a particular example of the last of a series of suggestions, but sure. Why not? If they make more money and enjoy it more, why the fuck not?"
"&gt;However, unfortunately, teaching is provided by the government mostly, they pay terrible salaries for teachers and the government would like to cut costs.   &gt;So my guess is that there will be a push for less teachers, or ""on-line"" teacher conference-call, and other crap, but they will definitely teach for technology to replace teachers.  I think the solution to education lies somewhere in between human interaction and automation. It's a complex problem which need a thorough analysis to figure out the way forward. Our education system is definitely broken and perhaps automation is could be the answer."
Immigration increases the supply side of the labor market, which drives down wages, thus driving down costs for the companies that hire them. That's how the employers pay less.  One of the major reasons why Silicon Valley firms are so outrageously profitable today is because they've utilized the H-1B Visas to reduce wages.   Some people, libertarians especially, would argue that, even if wages within certain markets are decreased, the economy as a whole is still better off since lower costs for businesses results in lower prices for consumers--which can expand markets (more people willing to buy stuff when it's cheaper) and the money saved can now be allocated elsewhere (creating more jobs, advancing technology, etc.).  But, that is a separate and much more complex discussion that involves a lot more variables in order to understand the true cost of the increased immigration (including public services, social cohesion, crime, etc.) versus economic benefits.
I agree. That's why I referenced the way things are done in the Valley in quotes.   &gt;...big companies...  I work in IT at a fortune 10 company. It's not a Tech firm but our CIO oversees a 10,000+ head count.    If you don't mind not having one of the 4 horseman on your resume, you can find great work with great pay and plenty of time to spend what you make in other industries that need technology to function (which is basically all of them).
"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely ""make out"" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become ""mature."" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer."