vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Not only is this a marketing gimmick masquerading as an article, but the principle survey question it cites appears to be pretty stupid (I say ""appears to be"", rather than ""is"", because nowhere can I find the actual wording of the question).  Compare the following questions:  ""What would make you happier, a better boss, or a pay raise?""  ""What would make you happier, exchanging your current boss for the best boss you've ever had, or a 50% increase in pay?""  In the first case---the question apparently asked in the actual survey---the responder is left to interpret the relative sizes of the proposed improvements to their job. There's no reason to believe they're considering changes of commensurate size, and in fact there may be systematic bias toward a more significant envisioned improvement in their boss.  Frankly, I would expect this bias, since a person's attitude toward their boss is often colored by the dictator-subject nature of their relationship. Let's be honest, we are predisposed to dislike people who have authority over us. When survey respondents are envisioning a ""better"" boss, they may very well be thinking about a boss who doesn't exercise that authority. But that's not a very realistic alternative, since such a boss would not be effective from the company's standpoint.  In the second question, the respondent has more concrete alternatives to consider. Their alternative boss is at least now confined by realism: this alternative boss had to have at least existed. Furthermore, the pay rise is well-specified.  Finally, any survey question on this matter suffers from the cheap-talk nature of surveys. If actually faced with this choice in the real world, would people put their money where their mouth is? I would hazard to guess that, as long as the pay increase was of a reasonable size, more than a few people who indicated ""better boss"" would ultimately take ""pay raise"" given the actual choice."
Rule of thumb: Double your hourly rate to get a yearly salary (in thousands). Halve your yearly salary to get your hourly rate. (assuming a 40hr/week job). eg: $50k/year = $25/hr.
"&gt; Wal-Mart already pays below market wages anyway.  What they pay *is* the market wage by definition.  &gt; They are just treated worse.  In which case, why don't they work for one of those other employers?  &gt; People don't choose to work for Wal-Mart vs other places, it's because Wal-Mart literally shuts down entire small towns mainstreets.  In what way does that force people to work for Wal-Mart? You act like the only way to get a job is to work for them. If you do not like the job that Wal-mart offers you, there is no compulsion to accept it.  &gt; Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with productivity, which really doesn't apply here. At the retail level, all workers are essentially the same. What, exactly, are they producing? They provide a service.  They are producing the service of retail. Shelves need to be stocked, registers need to be manned, things need to be cleaned, prices need to be adjusted, etc. etc. Employees can be nicer to the customers, or faster at performing tasks, or less likely to make mistakes, or hundreds of other things. Workers are *not* essentially the same - if they were, they would tend to have the same wage.  ""Production"" does not refer solely to the creation of goods. It refers to anything that results in an increase of *wealth* - in other words, it is any action that produces something of *value* to someone."
&gt; is allowing one person and a computer to do the job of what used to be 5 men keeping wages down even more  That doesn't make any sense. It means you can pay the man doing the work twice his normal salary and still be paying him less than 5 people
"This article is silly.  We have a functioning labor market. Wages are balanced by supply and demand.  We don't need more regulation to ""fix"" it.  I think the market is effectively bifurcated.  You have skilled jobs being well paid, and candidates can easily switch.  For instance entry-level Computer Science grads regularly make $60k and have multiple offers.  If you're highly skilled, life is good, economically.  I think the jobs that require trade-skills are also under supplied.  The roofer in the article is an example.  These folks also get reasonable pay and steady work, certainly enough for a middle class lifestyle.  If you're a low-skill worker, then life is much harder.  There are job shortages, wages are low, and employees suffer.  One complication is that many students go to college, but graduate without marketable skills.  This leaves them to compete against low-skill workers.  So college grads suffer from ""low"" wages, and non-college grads suffer from increased competition. I'm surprised so many people still take on college debt to get degrees that offer little to no wage premium.  Minimum wage hikes can help a little.  In Seattle they found no job loss from the first small minimum wage hike (and an increase in employee well-being).  The second hike was larger and created significant job losses (enough that total wages paid were flat).  I think this means that some jobs don't generate enough value to be paid $15/hr.  The TL-DR is get skills to lead an easier economic life."
Bi-weekly salaries often assume a 364-day year, and pay you 1/26 of your annual salary every two weeks. So you actually gain an extra week's salary every five or six years.
"Or doing work, that has value, but with an experienced employee looking over their shoulder for more total time than it would take said employee to just do the work him/herself. In which case they're learning something, and ""doing work that has value"", but at the cost of a similar amount of value from elsewhere.  That's pretty extreme, though, and at least in a field like programming where the pros get paid quite a bit...so say it takes the pro 10hrs to do something, and it takes the intern 40hrs and 5hrs of help to do the same thing. But if the pro gets paid $80/hr, and the intern only gets paid $10...haha that works out perfectly. Even if it hadn't the point stands—the intern can get paid something as long as they're doing _some_ useful work, even if it takes them an exorbitant amount of time to do it. If they actually need as much help as it would take the pro to just do it...consider another field, dude."
Really simple quick fix.  Change the minimum wage from $60,000 to $200,000.  If you cannot find any workers in our entire country to take the job and need to literally import workers from across the globe surely the incredibly rare skill set you require is worth that much.
Take $100,000 base salary, x 1.5 = $150,000 contractor salary, divide by 1,872 hours = $80/hr
&gt;Why does minimum wage exist, if not to account for low skill jobs like those found in Walmart.  Minimum wage exists as a floor, the lowest possible amount someone can survive on. Paying anyone less would make survival impossible, in fact, many wal-mart employees are also on food stamps.
"I did a rough model and in terms of total $$ paid (interest + penalty - alternative investment income) both options are almost the same with the ""paying it all upfront"" being perhaps a $300 or so better ($9200 vs $8900) However, that doesn't factor in inflation or tax considerations. Personally I'd go with the ""no-penalty"" scenario since you have more flexibility and can adjust along the way if anything else comes up in the meantime."
First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account.  Step by step you'll save nice money ;)
I've never read such a bullshit article in my life. The alternative to garment manufacturing jobs in places like Bangladesh is subsistence agriculture, completely outside of the cash economy.  If Communist/SJW of the West want to do something for the global poor, they need to look at population control and family planning. An overpopulated country will mean high pressures on the cost of living, and increased supply of labour will mean lower wages.  This is exactly what China has done - control population, and let the free market dictate wages and conditions. Look at the result - the biggest uplift of a population from poverty in history, with wages still growing yearly.  By contrast, look at Africa. The entire continent is supported by foreign aid, and its a basketcase, with the population of the continent forecast to grow to 4b by the end of the century.
Living wage applies to the location that the job is in. Warehouse in Northern KY? Living wage for northern KY. Warehouse in NYC? Living wage for NYC. Those numbers will be very different.   As for a definition of a living wage, that varies. One definition is that it's the minimum income that allows a worker to meet their basic needs (food, housing, transportation, healthcare, etc), presumably without needing to rely on a social net. If you need for food stamps or housing assistance to meet your basic needs for food and shelter, you probably aren't making a living wage.
One last thing. You'll also have to pay your personal federal/state taxes (including self-employment tax). That means medicare/social security, etc. If this is your first foray into self-employment you're probably not familiar with the fact that 1099 employers pick up 1/2 of the 15% medicare/social security bill. Typically, if you have an idea of what you make annually, you should be paying this out throughout the year. My pay as a contractor was always erratic so I usually paid it out once/twice a year. It's better to pay too much than too little because the gov't will give you back the money you overpaid. At the end of the day, paying taxed sucks more if you're self-employed but it balances out because you can make a lot more money. If as you said, you've broken six figures, hire a damn accountant/adviser to help you out and start reading. When people say, ""a business degree will help you advance in any field,"" it's subjects like accounting are core requirements to become a business undergrad. If you don't have time for more school and don't want to pay somebody else to take care of it, there's plenty of written material to learn it on your own. It's not rocket surgery, just basic arithmetic and a lot of business jargon (ie almost as much as technology)."
"&gt;""When the city raised minimum wage for large employers from $9.47 to $11 we see an increase in wages, but don't see a statistically significant decline in hours worked,"" he said.  Thanks bot, you just countered the headline!"
That's how you get lesser quality employees generally and less service. Considering the median income in that town is 160k I imagine the government employees are not the affluent ones. Pretty embarrassing actually that a town with that type of demographic would have to cut labor and you know it would be political suicide when people expect a certain level of government service.
Did you just completely skip the link I posted earlier about a company working on this very thing? Also, you keep on moving the targets to continue your objections. You were the one that said $12/hr. I showed how a machine could be a cost effective alternative. People are working on these machines *right now*. It may take a decade for market penetration, but this is happening.  I don't expect my level of job to be impacted by it for a long, long time, but there will be pressure applied to the job market itself.
Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income:     Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5%
It's provincial jurisdiction, so it can vary by province.  In Manitoba, it's different when an employee quits vs. being terminated: Quiting: Being terminated: Edit:  At least in Manitoba, according to the above link, an employer can't set different notice periods. Effective April 30, 2007, employers   cannot have alternate notice policies.   A notice policy set under the previous   legislation is not valid. The only   exclusion is a unionized workplace,   where a collective agreement has a   probationary period that is one year   or less. Ontario, on the other hand doesn't have anything legislated about resignation notice except under a couple very specific circumstances.  This leaves it open for contracts to put in place their own requirements.  In this case, you can be sued for provable losses (minus the savings from not having to pay you.)
Being paid for content is not the same as being paid for work though. Being paid for work is to be paid for the hours spent thinking about, experimenting, recording and producing the song as well as other costs attached to it. Being granted a monopoly over a specific combination of bits and bytes is something completely different.
"Many in management seem to live in an alternate reality from those who work for a living. When IBM shunted some techs into another company they put them on probation for a year (even though they were high performers - some with 25+ years at IBM = no job security) and cut their pay 25%.  The next time they went to move workers the first question was ""how much is the pay cut this time"". Management's reply, ""No pay cut because we found when we did it before it negatively affected morale.""   I thought: ""No kidding. They had to actually cut people's pay 25% to figure that out? What planet DO they live on?"""
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/business/economy/labor-market-wages.html) reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; We also do a lot of insurance restoration work like hail damage claims, and in those cases the insurance provider determines what they pay for labor and we work with it. &gt; At the end of the day, if I were to say, &amp;quot;We&amp;#039;re a great company; we pay people double the prevailing wage, pay our insurance and taxes, buy the best materials for your house, and we give back to our community, but that means we&amp;#039;re going to charge you double for your roof,&amp;quot; I&amp;#039;m sure people aren&amp;#039;t going to say: &amp;quot;Oh, that&amp;#039;s so great they pay their employees $35 an hour. Let&amp;#039;s write them a check for twice as much as their competitor because it makes us feel good!&amp;quot; They&amp;#039;re going to do what&amp;#039;s best for their bank account and their budget. &gt; That&amp;#039;s why for us the H-2B program is a win-win: We get great workers whom we pay well above the minimum wage, and they are low-risk temporary immigrants who come here to do the job and go home to their families at the end of the season. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nqns3/if_workers_are_scarce_is_it_the_work_or_the_wages/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~168421 tl;drs so far."
Amazon pays their entry-level workers $5.00 more an hour than minimum wage.  We're comparing that to child-labor sweat shops?  News flash, if unskilled entry level workers can afford the median home it means people who have been working for years are making the same as entry level workers.  Does that sound like a world you want to live in?  Everyone gets the same priced home, and you have no hope of ever getting anything better.
You know there are things that are out of your hands right? Like the choices your parent's made, choices others make that have impacted you, etc. Can't control everything in life and your nativity to those complexities shows that you've never met or heard of people who are themselves left without many options in their life to just up themselves and find a job that actually pays a living wage.   FDR once said something along the lines of if a business cannot operate without paying their employees a living wage, then it shouldn't be operating at all in the US. We should be working at putting the pressure on those exploiting the labor of our people without options to pay living wages instead of blaming one another for their life circumstances.
this is exactly why we need to enact legislation that counters that mentality.   if McDonald's had to pay that $15/hr for each employee fired for automation into a fund for works who are unemployed due to automation i think they might reconsider.
Careful.  I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment.  It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099.  On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages.  On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year.  Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company.  As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104.  Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay.  I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.
"Chris, Joe's table helps.  but think this way:  there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig:  either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig.  I'd do this in ""arrears"" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig.  I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax.  However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax.  Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well."
"Look at how much tax you paid last year, including withholding and any additional amount that might have been due with the tax return. Look at the instructions for the W-4 form, which sets how much tax you want your employer to withhold. Adjust the numbers on that form until the total withheld during the year is close to what you expect this year's total to be -- remember, though, that there's no penalty for over-withholding but could be for under-withholding. Submit the W-4 form to your employer.  Remember that we're a few weeks into the year, so even if you adjust withholding now there will have been several paychecks at the prior setting; you can try to build that into your guesstimate of how to reset the withholding, or just not worry about it. Do the same with your state's withholding adjustments form. Repeat on a yearly basis, to account for raises, changes in other income, changes in filing status, etc. until it's close enough that you're satisfied with it. Then reconsider if/when your financial situation changes. Personally I find that exercise more effort than it's worth, and have simply set my withholding at ""close enough"". I usually get some money back from the feds and owe some to the state, but either is handled happily by my normal bank account balance."
That said, it is very unlikely you will be charged overdraft fees for three reasons: Many banks have done away with these fees in lieu of other ways of generating revenue. Banks that still charge these fees usually have ""overdraft protection"" options for a little more money a month, effectively negating the possibility you will be charged these fees. The ability to deduct an amount of money from your checking account is now typically checked electronically before the payment is authorized. That is, using a Visa debit card, the card balance is checked immediately, and even when using paper check, most retailers have check scanning machines that do roughly the same thing. On a personal note, the bank that I have allows my account to be deducted below my checking account balance only if the payment is requested electronically (e.g. someone who has my card information charges me for a monthly service). In this case, the funds are simply listed in the negative and deducted from any amount I deposit till the proper amount is repaid (e.g. if I'm at -$25 dollars due to a charge when my account balance was $0 and then I deposit $100, my available balance will then be $75, not $100). Finally, per the comment by @Thebluefish, while I minimize the likelihood you will be charged overdraft fees, it is good to check into the exact circumstances under which you might be charged unexpectedly by your bank. Read the documentation they give you carefully, including any mailed updates, and you'll reduce the chance of receiving a nasty surprise. For reference, here are some of the fees charged by Bank of America. What about taxes? When you begin working, an employer will usually have you fill out a tax form such as a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your wages. If they don't, then it is your responsibility to calculate and file your own income taxes (if you are self-employed, an independent contractor or paid under the table). If your employer is reputable, they will send you additional information (generally in February) you need to properly file your taxes prior to April 15th (the IRS tax deadline for most people).
"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December.  This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st.  H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the ""earnings"". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately.  If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest.  If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!)  then this reduces the return.  If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015.  So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014.  And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?"