vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt; So.... If everybody took your advice, how would you ever be able to hire other people?  I never said every single person needs to open a business.  I said we need more entrepreneurs.  Your example is implausible, unrealistic, over-simplified, and not at all what I suggested.  I just find it hysterical that I get down-voted to hell for suggesting that we teach kids that there are other options besides ""get a job"", and that anyone can start their own business and actually *provide* jobs, improving their local economy.  But, fuck that I guess.  Go upvote the guy who says the government should just be giving out free money to everyone.  Yea, that makes much more sense in the long term growth of our economy.  *facepalm*  This ignorance in this subreddit is astounding."
They offset pay a week. So this year GE employees get paid for 51 weeks. They still get paid for that week, when they stop working, but it just made that one quarter look good by reducing wages by one week.  GE digital is mostly rebranding existing projects. They spent more on commercials than actual development. They won't hire/pay actual software people because they're too expensive. So try to have hardware manufacturing people develop software products.  They are constantly gaming the vouchering. Like... To am absolutely insane degree. All to make the numbers work out just so. Some powerful executives are clearly obsessed. It doesn't help deliver products customers want on time with a profit. It just makes things look good while workers struggle to follow the random rules.  Jeese. There's tons I'm not remembering. GE has been doing the cut costs to pay dividends for years. For a company that depends on long lead time technological industry, cutting costs to make your numbers isn't a long term solution.
We can take is managing the garbage that we generate from our homes, offices, factories, manufacturing units, etc. and for this, we can hire a waste collection Sydney company but the problem is that hiring an appropriate company or service provider is not easy at all.
"&gt; ""Our biblical mission,"" an online statement reads, ""is to 'sell' our lighting products so that we may 'tell' everyone we can about God's soul-saving, life transforming gospel message...""  First piece of evidence (but legal)  &gt; In the interview, Wolfe claims he was told most employees at Voss were Southern Baptist, but employees could go to any church, as long as they were ""born again.""  Second piece of evidence (trending towards grey area, but legal)  &gt; According to the complaint, the manager asked Wolfe ""to identify every church he has attended over the past several years; where and when [he] was 'saved' and the circumstances that led up to it.""  Third piece of evidence (not legal)  &gt; The complaint claims the manager asked Wolfe if he would ""have a problem"" coming to work early, without pay, to attend Bible study.  Fourth (not legal, but often overlooked)  When I say the business laid out what they expect out of employees, I did mean ""during the hiring process based on the questions asked"", not laid them out in public view. It's still illegal whether they did it in public or private."
"&gt;1. Clean the toilets. Show that you're willing to do whatever it is you're asking your people to do.  LOL.  Too true.  It also gives you a (pardon the pun) whole *shitload* of ""ground-level"" evidence regarding how your employees (and/or customers) feel about your operation (and also in many ways reveals how your company feels about/treats employees &amp; clientele).  People who *respect* and *appreciate* the place that they work for or patronize ... help keep the place clean. Businesses &amp; employers that appreciate their customers &amp; employees make certain that the environment &amp; workplace (ALL of it, including the toilets &amp; bathrooms) are nice, clean, well-equipped, properly maintained, etc.  &gt;My largest mistake early on was not being able to say ""you're incompetent at this job and you're fired."" Instead I gave a wishy washy ""we don't really need you anymore"" and they filed unemployment falsely.  Actually, with the ""reason"" that you gave, those people were **perfectly entitled** to claim unemployment -- you didn't ""fire"" them for cause/incompetence... the language you used clearly indicated that you **laid them off.**"
You are both right and wrong.   A few key things   - I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation  - I ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon. In fact, my government body actually does often hire contractors who are also employed.   - I don't live in the US, things are somewhat less different where I am.  - It is certainly not illegal, and I would even argue that it is even somewhat ethical. My work saved my employer (the tax payer) a significant amount of money, which is a net positive. The service is of high quality, and I did not break any employment agreements or laws in the process.   - I hired a lawyer to double check everything.
In other words, Wal-Mart offered them a job, when no one else would. But somehow that makes Wal-Mart the villain. I guess they should learn their lesson, raise wages, and hire workers with higher skill sets. That'll make you feel warm and fuzzy, and it'll give someone else a higher wage job. Of course, the low skill workers will just not be hired to any job, but I guess it's better for them to be on straight welfare than working with some subsidies. Right?
"I assume you mean ""how."" Sure... Suppose I have the option of hiring 3 people, or buying a robot to do the work that they would do. (Some single function, in order to operate it 24 hours a day, 5 days a week, I'd have to hire 3 shifts to do it.) I choose the robot because I look at the cost (capital and operations) of the robot and it's lower than, say, 2 years of paying 3 people. The productivity of the factory went up, but not due to any improvement in the workforce. After the robot has done enough work to effectively pay for its capital costs, the additional work it's doing is profit.  The case labor tries to make is that ""output per worker went up so workers should be paid more,"" except the attribution of that increase in output has nothing to do with the workers and everything to do with the company's ability to leverage capital."
I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .
Pensions should be held in an arms length trust independent trust and the company should have no access to it. All workers should be paid before executives or creditors see dime one. This is why unions need to get their shit together and break these laws for the rich, by the rich. When one of these execs walks away with millions of worker's earnings in their pockets, protest at their house, protest at the next company he works at so companies will avoid hiring them. If you let them steal your lunch money without a black eye you'll starve.
&gt; Sometimes Walmart is the only place a person can be hired.  they don't have to live there. there are NO business on say the badlands of south dakota. i can't want to live there and then complain about the lack of business. move. get more education. start your own business and maybe employ others. dont get mad at someone else for not hiring you or offering you less than you want. how many jobs have  YOU created?
Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.
I know this feeling all too well. I just laid off two employees yesterday. They were hired in our early days before we had more hiring experience and have been dragging down morale for quite awhile now. But no more!
10,000 dollars more, on average, across 12million employees, bro. That adds up.  You consume and benefit from products made by corporations, and call them rent seekers.  I consume and benefit from public goods and services made by the government and call them rent seekers.  Whats the diff? What makes one person greedy for offering a product/service that many people want, and another person not at all greedy for straight up jacking money off my pay check before it ever reaches my hands?
Anecdotal evidence, but my company is trying to fill four electronic assembly positions in North East Ohio. We are literally in the backyard of Delphi and GM. We are paying 18-25 dollars an hour with only minimal experience required, full benefits, full time with overtime available.  We cannot fill them, plenty of interviews, plenty of people we make contingent offers to, but they all no show or fail the pee test. Its insanity.
In the UK, the government has recently announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to those who earn over £44k. This means that if you currently earn £43,999, and your employer offers you a raise of £10 per annum to £44,009, then you could be over £1k worse off as a result.
In the current system it would be irresponsible to pay more than they have to but if corporations get to be amoral people they need tighter regulation because what's good for maximizing profits is rarely good for people. If you want to argue that businesses are more important than people then perhaps profits should receive favorable treatment to people but I highly doubt Lincoln was talking about Walmart when he was talking about a government by the people and for the people. There's plenty of businesses out there charging a fair markup for a quality product or service and paying a fair wage. It's not highly profitable but I think we've been watching the race to the bottom by publicly traded companies maximizing quarterly returns at the expense of literally anything and everything else. Something's gotta give.  Also, your argument implies that you're ok subsidizing Walmart's profit margin with your tax money. Their employees are receiving government benefits because Walmart doesn't pay them well enough to afford it on their own. Figure $6B split 190M ways, we (US workers) all gave Walmart a little over $30 each.
Here are a few points to consider: Taxes: As a consultant, you will be responsible for the employer portion of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, and you might have to pay for state unemployment insurance and state disability insurance, as well. Office expenses: As a consultant, you may be required to buy your own laptop, pay for your own software licenses and buy other office-related supplies. For higher-end services, you may be setting up a complete office and even hire your own secretary and other support staff. Benefits: As a consultant, you will be responsible for your own health insurance, retirement plan and other benefits that an employer would ordinarily provide. Education: Your employer will likely pay for books and magazine subscriptions and send you to seminars, in order to keep your skills current; your client won't. Liability: Consultants face certain liabilities that employees don't, and have to factor the cost of insuring against those risks into their rate. Let's say you're a software developer, and your faulty code causes a nuclear plant's reactor core to overheat and melt down. As an employee, you'll get fired. As a consultant, you will get sued. Even consultants in low-risk fields can easily shell out thousands of dollars per year for a basic general liability policy. Sales & marketing: Don't forget that when your contract ends, you will have expenses associated with finding your next client, including the opportunity cost of not getting paid for your services during that time. All these factors contribute to your overhead, which you have to roll into your consulting rate. You should also add a margin of profit -- after all, as you're in business for yourself, you should be compensated for taking this entrepreneurial risk.   If you're looking for a quick over-the-thumb rule, you can figure that your equivalent consulting rate should be about twice what you would be paid hourly as an employee. Assuming you work 2,000 hours a year, if you would receive a $100,000 salary, your hourly rate should be $100. Of course, this is only a very rough guideline. Ultimately, your rate will mostly be influenced by how established you are and how much your services are in demand.
All things being equal, a $55,000/year job with 25% benefit load is about $68,750/year. That's a little more than $34/hr. Your rate really depends on the nature of the work. If it's strictly a part-time job where you are an employee, you're probably looking at a $28-38/hr range. If you're an independent contractor, the rate should be higher, as you're paying the taxes, doing other administrative stuff. How much higher depends on the industry... software/it rates are usually 1.5-2x, construction is driven by the union scale in many places, etc. Note that you need to meet criteria defined by the IRS to successfully maintain independent contractor status from a tax POV.
To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense.  Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth.  On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.
Cab companies in my city have actually adapted and provide many of the benefits that Uber used to claim as their own: ordering on an app (#1 advantage in my opinion), lower prices (20% discount since Uber came to town), tracking of your cab on an app. Still lots of room to grow, but I like that Uber has forced them to adapt a bit at least.   I still try to use cabs when possible because Uber is, in general, a piece of shit company.
This is why I've come into the view that most companies should be worker co-ops.  There are a few key sectors of the economy like health care and banking that probably shouldn't have a profit motive to them.  Turn everything else into worker co-ops.  That way you, as the workers, do earn that money through your own blood sweat and tears with the added benefits of not having a CEO that makes over 300x as much as you while doing away with wage slavery.  Its strange that we say we value democracy in our society, except in our companies which look more like serfdom.
&gt; Currently many people are still getting virtually free healthcare as an untaxed employee benefit and therefore care nothing about anyone else.      If they only knew how much their salary increases are being eaten up by rising healthcare costs.  We are all paying for it.
That was a quote from the article itself... There's a good link involved in that excerpt... Read it...  Job lock is a real thing... That's the only reason people remain at the large corporations that treat them just like a number and don't give a crap about them...  People work for large companies with fucked up schedules, commutes and often health detrimental duties... Yet they don't want to adventure to the unknown where there's a chance they will not get the same benefit package...  As anecdote, I live in Rural Washington state, a lot of Union people travel to Seattle for work...  This is a very long, and stressful commute, I-5, 16, and 405 are not fun... Some of them will spend upwards of five or six hours a day just on the road... when you ask them why... It's because of the pay and the benefit package... when you factor in the extra hours of driving, the pay really is not that huge of a difference, and the toll on your body that that kind of commute takes is horrific... But they wouldn't dare look at small companies Closer by that may not be able to offer them the pension, and health insurance plan that is mandated when working for Amazon, or building for JP Morgan...  So they just give in, become a number, and on paper, and empirically, it is a net gain... But the intangible effects on their psyche, happiness, are quite clear....
"As an easy and rough rule of thumb, a job for $55,000 per year is $55 per hour as a contractor. That's roughly twice the hourly rate.  In return, the company gets the rate to vary your hours or cease your employment with less financial, legal or managerial overhead than a full time employee.  You have less stability, less benefits, perhaps need to put some time into finding another job sooner. Of course the ultimate, though less helpful, answer is ""whatever the market will bear."""
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren&amp;#039;t previously receiving.  &gt; LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it.  &gt; The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~202637 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*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5"
"Getting pretty tired of this.  Rabble: ""There's no shortage! Just offer $500k a year, you'll have plenty of workers!""  Tech companies: ""That's not economical for us. Wrecks our margins and business model. We offer **very good salaries** for good software engineers, and still can't find them.""  Rabble: ""Evil corporations! Greedy!""  Best solution for long-term American economic advancement and global technological dominance: offer H1B visas for every highly qualified engineer who wants to come here. Bring 'em on!"
One of the top benefits is that they can help you organise all your discs. According to several book printing companies that offer CD/DVD duplication and replication services, business owners are actually unaware of the potential of these storage options and you can store CD-ROMS, DVDs, CDs and in fact everything that resembles their shape and size
"&gt; Do you even know these people and their history to know that they are ""undeserving"" of higher pay?  if they were worth more, other businesses would offer them higher higher pay. they aren't forced to work for walmart. but if their work makes a business $10/hr, it makes no sense for businesses to offer them more than that - it's a loss to the business.   &gt; Your comments show immense naivety and lack of empathy.  i'm just a med student, but i plan on giving a lot in charity once i'm working. and i'll bet you my charity givings will do many times more good than the gov't would do with it. watch just 2 minutes from this speech. it explains my views.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18zqtVcGxAA#t=7m55s"
Despite all the extensive benefits of communication and marketing that the internet has brought, it also includes the danger of an easy means of disparaging a company or individual. This is why it is so essential to safeguard your company’s good name as well as reinforce your credibility. How can you do this?
It's wrong to think that we can pay people in the public sector fuck all but still get good results.  If offering perks to public employees attracts talent that eventually leads to great public works, great! Hopefully unions can find the right balance of perks and boondogles.
No.  Our taxes allocated the resources necessary for us to have roads, power, and all the nice facilities we use.  The rich benefited from the government offering them the jobs to build these things.  Or did you forget about that part?  You sound like you think the rich are altruistic.  If they were, would we really be in the situation we are today, with the increasing wage gap and people distrusting big business?  No.  We would laud big business as our saviors and protectors, would have confidence that big business is there if we fall down, to pick us up.  But big business has shown it is more about back stabbing than helping.
If you can't do that, you're likely overspending. Also, look at what pensions your employer might offer. If they offer matching contributions, contribute at least as much to maximize the tax free extra pay this equates to. If you have access to a defined benefit plan, join it as soon as you are eligible. Last, I think it's important to recognize that at age 23 you're just starting out. Much of your career income earning potential is ahead of you. Strive to be the best at what you do, get promotions, and increase your income. Meanwhile, continue to save a good portion of what you earn. With discipline, you'll get where you want to be.
For an international company, being in a different timezone seems like an advantage. The east coast is close enough to have a large overlap between normal business hours with the west coast, but expands the amount of time that they can cover with HQ workers working normal hours.
You were the one who started the government talk.  &gt; No.  Our taxes allocated the resources necessary for us to have roads, power, and all the nice facilities we use.  The rich benefited from the government offering them the jobs to build these things.  Or did you forget about that part?  I have no idea what lead you to believe that I said these businesses that do work for the government aren't getting paid, but in large part the money they are being paid with has been borrowed from the financial sector. I've told you this three times now, but you seem completely unwilling and overall too ignorant to absorb the information.