vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt; That's just poor leadership. If I don't win, I'm just taking my ball home so no one can play.  What are you talking about? It's completely feasible that a business could be successful (or at least stable) under an *X*% tax rate, but would be unable to stay afloat with an *X*+5% tax rate. (Note: I'm not saying that the boss is accurate about his policy predictions, but if he is, there's nothing unreasonable about this.)
&gt; correction. walmart hires them because they have a low marginal utility undeserving of a higher wage.  Good point Schrute.  Except that we're talking about people, not animals.  Guess what, making money hand over fist and being a tightwad about wages isn't sticking to some principle, it's just you being a greedy, avaricious asshole.  There are plenty of success stories that don't involve squeezing everyone in your supply chain plus your American workers as hard as you can so as to maximize the profits of a very few at the top.  Does everyone in the Wal-Mart family, everyone with the last name Walton, really need to be a multi-billionaire 20x over? Do their CEO's and other execs really deserve 1000x more pay than their workers? Why is it that Costco, Starbucks, Microsoft, Trader Joes, Ben and Jerry's, etc, can all take good care of their workers, or at least better care, and still be considered successful?   There's this insane idea floating around Republican circles that the only way to really make it in business is to fuck everyone below you as hard and as fast as you can otherwise you aren't really as 'successful' as you could be.  It's just an infantile view of socio-economics and it deserves to be shamed.    Wal-Mart could very easily raise wages and offer healthcare and benefits and still be a very successful and powerful company.  No one is saying they need to pay crazy wages or lose money offering insane benefits or what have you.  Just that they should take a little bit better care of their workers, that's all.   They choose to act from the notion that the floor workers are dirt to be exploited, rather than an asset that helps the company succeed.  It's backwards, dickish thinking and it's finally becoming an issue for public debate, thank fuck.
IMO would have been a solid idea 10-20 years ago, but I'm not sure how they are going to monetize it. I think it's a great value add for the mall, but I can't see users paying each time they use it or for an allotted time. I think the only way it would be successful for the company who makes/operates the booths is if the mall is paying them a fee for having them in their mall, but offer it as a free service for their attendees.   With the number of people physically going to malls decreasing due to online retailers, I don't see this as a forward thinking idea. My view is limited though. I can't say I know shopping habits or trends in China.
But look at how TV programmes,  newspapers, radio stations make their money from advertising.  Social media is a great business model in the advertising world because you have total control over which demographic sees your adverts.  Even better, the people who use the social media site also make the content - for free. I do think it's a bubble and has a very fickle user base but if they get it right there is a huge amount to be earned without charging to view the content. So I don't agree that it's a bad business model as such, it's just hard to get right.
His company bought and sold businesses. The businesses themselves were the product. Of course they were speculating. Every single business speculates on the demand of their product. It is different from a typical store, but its still business.    Private equity and the business of flipping, stripping and sometimes holding businesses isn't new or unique to Mr. Romney. Its not easy, like this article tries to portray, and IMO takes a greater business person to run and be successful in than a typical business. Experience: I worked for a private equity group for a short period of time during the boom. It was scary and extremely stressful. There are games, cronyism, and inside information like there is in any business. Bigger scale with many jobs at stake and huge gains and losses? Yes. But simple and not business? No way.   I don't like Romney or Obama. I like an honest candidate, so I don't really like any of them. Ever.
Success is not defined by how much money you make or how many hours you put in. It's defined by health and happiness, and it really sounds like you're a raving maniac, so I don't think we can put you down for either of those.  Or you could just be trolling.
"I think often times the personality traits that make founders so successful are the same traits that keep them from giving up control. By the time you've made it to the top of the mountain you've proven everyone who ever said ""do this"" wrong. So people saying ""step aside"" isn't going to do anything but convince you that you can prove them wrong again.   It's easy to say ""put your ego to the side"" but when your stubbornness and smarts helped get you where you are, it's not easy to look inside yourself and say ""I'm not the best guy for this."""
"Business coaching can actually bring the much-desired changes to your business. Coach is a word which is from ""USA"", a Hungarian name that means news. Today, however, the word has a wider use and it basically means transportation of people from one point to the other where they desire to be succeeds"
It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say ""we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!"". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know..
Think of it. How does an insurance company make money? Well essentially, it tries to have more knowledge about risk than those insuring themselves. It also attempts to manage its investments better. Well to this requires a lot of knowledge of statistics and this is primarily what you will be doing over your career. One friend got into it because he liked to gamble and win (he lost about $2k as a young teenager in Hong Kong). He spent a lot of time studying probability and statistics and then became fascinated by it. So fascinated that he became a full actuary, which means a long time studying. He was willing to put the time in.
Among all other competitive courses, most of the aspiring students choose business administration courses to reach the pinnacle of success. It is a known fact that associate degree gives a strong foundation to get you started in various fields such as sales, human resources, retail and hospitality management, and marketing.
&gt; integrity and honesty is the lifeblood of any company who wants to stay in business for longer than a short period  But this is not what we have seen in the real world. Plenty of successful, prominent companies have abused their power, taken advantage of customers, or done things that harm the public. People have imperfect information and often don't know much about any given company.
I wouldn't count on the hardware just disappearing.  Someone is going to capitalize on the business device market; microsoft just announced their new stuff, but they could pick up the hardware division anyway. There are rumors of Facebook moving into the hardware market, and the hardware engineers and research has to be worth something to someone to just buy out.  The market value of the company is dropping so much that it's be crazy to not chance it just to have a chance to get the engineers that have already been vetted by RIM. A lot of smart people were picked up by RIM in Waterloo; although I hear a lot went to Amazon and other biggest successful companies.  Tl;dr Just because there's no RIM doesn't mean blackberry style devices are extinct.
With the help of Turnaround Consulting Service in London, a business can grow from the failures and start a fresh in the successful direction. Such businesses are offered striking services to overcome the unwanted situations that may be stressful for a business. The professionals detect the faulty features of a company and offer the right tips and guidance to make them strong and more powerful in running a business with a reputation and courage.
&gt;when he's already admitted that he has all the money he'll ever need  Sounds like he should sell or close the company.  &gt;and what he's doing now is fear mongering his own employees so that he doesn't have to pay slightly higher taxes  See I can already shoot down your explanation, because it's not just higher taxes, its increased business tax liability, increased business insurance liability. All of which deincentivize not incentivize.  If you started out making 80% of a billion dollar gross profit, then 70% , then 60%, then 50%, then 40% and with proposed changes to liability you're now looking at 30% of a billion. How long would you continue? The guy is 70+ years. He probably continues because it is his passion. But at what point is the stress and return on his time and input not worth it? That's the topic. Not greed. Is it greedy that whether he made 80% or even only 10% of a billion? You may say yes, but as a decision maker he must constantly weigh whether or not it is worth it.   &gt;He didn't get successful in a vacuum, he got successful in a system which helped fund his success because 42 years ago the people who were where he is today were taxed more so he could get where he is today. But his opinions aren't what I'm mad about, I'm mad because he is greedy and a bully and a liar and a hypocrite of almost incomprehensible proportions.   Obama said he didnt build it, but he'll damn well close or sell the company if he wants. Rhetoric is cute until thousands of employees are out of jobs because the owner didn't feel it was worth it to continue the business.
No one cut makes it a lousy product, but give the cost accountants enough time and they will make anything mediocre to bad in lots of different ways. In-N-Out is a privately held company. Obviously, they are more interested in making money through selling a quality product and expanding sales. They don't have to worry about shareholders who don't give a fuck and just want short-term profits. They could make more money by turning the cost accountants loose, but they also know that would hurt their business. The difference shows. McDonald's is rarely busy here. At In-N-Out, lines are usually out the door and you can't find an open table. I only go there late at night on weekdays, since that's the only time it isn't slammed. So you have two companies selling a similar product at almost the same price. One is wildly successful and slowly expanding. The other sells a shitty product and thinks that marketing is the problem.
Merging?  If anything the opposite is happening.  Oil companies are moving in the opposite direction, separating their upstream (extraction) and downstream (refining) aspects.  ConoccoPhillips just did this and others will follow.  Refining isn't very profitable and involves lots of danger, red tape and headaches.    I look forward to the people who complained about the evils of mergers and vertical integration now complaining about how spinnoffs are the new evilest thing ever.
"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news.  In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day.   But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions.  Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time.  There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood.  And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting.   The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to.  By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins.   So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, ""this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them."".  Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect.  They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up."
I wouldn't call them another Snapchat. They aren't dependent on advertising and they are actually in a pretty decent position. What is concerning is that moving forward they think they advertising will make up for their losses and be enough to set them apart.  Other than that... They have been cashing in the shift away from cable and the 'purchase only the networks you watch' mentality. They have the brand people like and trust, they have the hardware, and they are pretty boring at the end of the day. I think they'll be one of the few who survive if there were to be a major tech crash coming up.
A commercial space that would give wings to your dreams. A place that boasts of supreme architecture and a business-friendly environment. Located on the heart of the city's trading district, it's the perfect place to make your business ready for the next big leap to success. Make this embodiment of status and power yours today
I agree.   I cant think of a heavily unionised company that is succeeding. Their staffing costs tend to be too high. This ultimately leads to everyone losing their jobs. In the UK at least, unions have brought nothing good to the table for years, just strikes and ridiculous demands.
You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.
The only real option (long-term) is for businesses to move to other areas and re-distribute the population, which would allow for cheaper areas/homes to become viable options.  This has actually begun to happen really, not many people may be aware yet of what's occurring in Nevada today.  Apple just joined Tesla and Switch in announcing billion dollar investments in Virginia City, Nevada. Google also made huge land purchases. The tech population has begun moving into cheaper areas already and many people will follow, to cheaper homes and lower costs of living.  All people are to blame for this real estate situation, everyone is just looking out for themselves and they are all concentrating in specific areas - naturally costs will rise.  Re-distributing the population geographically (businesses + wealth) will relieve this kind of stress happening in focused areas.
"The biggest problem with the company was that they had really good employees for a long time who were passionate about their jobs, but they then made progressing through the company awful in certain regions. For instance, at one point, if you wanted to become an assistant manager of your department, you had to agree to a rotation within your metro stores for what was basically a two dollar raise. You might start at a store two miles from your home, and then end up 30 miles from home. Then, six months later, be 40 miles away. So, a lot of people who were intelligent, looked at that and said ""Yeah, I can just stay here and make two dollars less. I live down the street.""  But, the worst part was: their employees were able to make the shitty systems work most of the time. So they were never viewed as shitty, despite the fact that their employees routinely told them of their shittiness and how awful they were to use.  Then they laid off the several thousand people (they used some very interesting calculations to come up with their 1500 person layoff figure a while back) who were responsible for keeping the ship afloat, and put all those duties on the backs of other people.  Disclosure: I was out before the layoffs. Left of my own free will, and still like the people I worked with. I left because I looked at moving up and was like: NOPE. These people are morons."
&gt;Dollars to donuts... I'd be willing to bet you have a pretty good boss there. ...and she (my boss) left 6 months later for a better job. Now I report to a clueless idiot. He has no experience in our industry but was hired because he was part of the good old boys referral network the CEO has going on. He spent his time flipping companies for living prior to that. Now the veneer is starting to come crashing down, despite me trying to make my boss look good for these past ~2 years. He's desperately trying to find a corporate controller (interviewing) to dump his mess onto as I type this. People external to the department are starting to gather he's all buzz words and power points and no substance. We were bought out by a bigger company recently and he can't hide behind his usual bullshit. My new boss dropped the bombshell today that the girl who was in my position 3 years ago (but quit and took a managers job at a rival company through connections) in now a candidate for the corporate controller position. His reasoning hinged almost completely on the justification that she is already well like here and is familiar with the company. The girl doesn't even have a college degree. Let alone a masters. She left a tax mess on her way out that I've spent the last 3 years trying to fix from an administrative standpoint. Apparently the guy who kept my boss from looking like a total idiot (me) isn't worth mentoring up to the next level. But some random person with no college degree (but connections), and holes in her understanding of our line of work is a serious candidate for a promotion. It's amazing to watch the bad decisions compound themselves into bigger and bigger problems. My boss inherited a relatively well oiled accounting department and turned it into an audit nightmare. He doesn't know half of what goes on, on a daily basis but feels the need to change processes arbitrarily without understanding WHY we do what we do and how it relates to our industry and external compliance, let alone GAAP. It's quite apparent this ship is sinking. I'm trying my best to get off it now as of today.
"I mean, in the eyes of investors it is a good investment.  &gt; ""Demand for stock from fund managers exceeded supply by more than 29 times at that price, two people said.""  They also have plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, along with refining plants in China, Indonesia, Turkey, and South Africa. So it already has a stable foot hold in various economies.   Like I said, it's nice to see a business IPO that offers a tangible product with a relatively cheap IPO along with a chance to see much growth. You don't see many of these around nowadays."
"that just goes to show that - if you aren't making it up - either ""wealth manager"" is a joke job like ""life coach"" or that you are very terrible at it, and I feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to fall for your bamboozle."
"&gt;I've seen that happen many times.  I have too. Including several times where I was personally involved -- either on the hiring or the hired end; not to mention countless dozens of times with colleagues and coworkers.  Most people don't realize it, but the vast majority of positions never even make it to the ""help wanted"" stage -- someone is already lined up and hired before it gets to that point -- and a not insignificant number of the ones that *do* get posted as job listings, are also already filled (the company is just going through the motions, either as a negotiating tactic, or because they want to see what/who else is out there).  &gt;It happened with the position I'm in currently. I started out as a temp. Originally the job ad was some aimless posting about needing a new accountant, the accountant didn't even need a college degree if they had equivalent work experience. Then all of a sudden one week the posting changed to a copy-paste job of my work and educational experience (much more demanding than the previous ad).  Ha!  Means there is one SMART manager there (both for the fact that they DIDN'T demand the ""degree"" in the first place, and secondly because they knew how to work the system to get YOU hired full time).  Dollars to donuts... I'd be willing to bet you have a pretty good boss there."
Until they're old enough to be legally responsible for their own credit, the only thing you can really do is show them by example how to manage money and credit in your own finances.  Teach them budgeting, immerse them in understanding how credit and financing work, and teach them smart ways to make their money work for them. When they're teenagers, you could potentially approach small banks or credit unions about ways to perhaps co-sign loans for them and let them make payments to learn good habits for managing their responsibilities, but that's not always easy either.  It won't do anything for their credit, but having the responsibility of coming in to make payments might instill good habits and help their self-esteem at the same time. You have great intentions, but as has been pointed out here already, from a legal standpoint there's not much you can do.  All you can do is prepare them for the day when they are on their own and can enter into credit agreements.  Kids going to college get into real trouble with credit because cards are handed out like candy to them by the banks, so teaching them money management skills is invaluable and something you can do now.
Scale Manager provides the best water conditioner product in the world.  As a chemical-free Hard water descaler for commercial, industrial and residential applications, Magnation guarantees reduced. This action inhibits the minerals from bonding into the larger water molecules which cause scale buildup. Although, the mineral elements are held in postponement and repel each other, which stopped the process of calcification. Depending on the hardness of your water, this may need to be done once a week.