vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You cost the company money both from your time off AND from its portion of your insurance bill!  and you think you're owed a bonus?   the nerve!  have a bag of frozen peas for your jaw and get back to work!  now i need a shower after channeling your horrible old boss.
Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.
I also recently did that. I buy my own software, buy my own computer accessories. I'll use my own laptop. I could bring in my own chair.   Creature comforts don't mean dick when you make 40% more than a salaried employee. Enjoy your 1000 bucks of perks, guys. That's how much more I'll take home every 2 weeks.
I was having a conversation about this recently because I got a raise and it kind of surprised me I didn't have to fight so much for it. Companies regularly give us CPI increases but in certain fields (especially IT at the moment) wage growth is so rapid that in 1-2 years you're 10-20% behind your peers.  A lot of people change jobs regularly to avoid this. I've fought for raises and kept moving around to different departments to keep my wage up to baseline but I get that for a lot of people thats not possible due to company culture.
"Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share.   25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it?  I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get ""points"" under their draconian ""no days off ever"" policy."
"&gt;entitled  Your entire comment, dude.. what? It's getting what the market dictates you're worth, not ""entitlement."" An extremely talented developer who can find work for any firm on earth is going to have a lot of power in the employer-employee negotiations because of his or her extremely hard work and exemplary performance throughout life. What does being physically uncomfortable have to do with literally anything anyone is talking about? It's like you're trying to say twenty different things, and none of them make any sense or are related to the discussion at all."
You can't be doing it yourself. Only your employer can do it. If the employer doesn't provide the option - switch employers. The only way for you to do it yourself is if you're the employer, i.e.: self-employed.
It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month).  It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)
The company would make so much money off of our team's new synergies that they'd pay us a huge bonus out of shear guilt, allowing us to retire immediately and so a) they'd have to find our replacements, a nigh impossible task, and 2) we'd all be bored doing nothing but drinking Coronas on the beach, possibly injuring our health needlessly and incurring unnecessary retirement health expenses.
Loans are indeed a bitch. You should make enough to cover your expenses and live comfortably. Any salary above that is at your discretion. You shouldn't feel pressured to compete for highest salary because if you're happy, it really doesn't matter.
Not entirely practicle advise. What about healthcare and all those other essential needs?  When it comes down to it if the economy is rockin and rollin like back in the mid-1990's people can easily jump boat to another company.  But in todays more sluggish enviroment that option is not their for most workers.  I think the honest fact is no good solutions are apparent.  You give some ideas but if saving money was that easy for most people then ... well you know ... why would anyone complain, right?
Yeah well I have 2 kids and they never gave her any leave. What I have found out is that even thou some companies offer it but they are not obligation to pay a woman for that time off.     So she can take it just not be paid.
American workers generally get an average of 10 days paid vacation a year, sometimes with a few extra sick days; but a full time American worker averages taking only 5-7 days a year.    I'm an American worker and I get 1 day a year. After 5 years, I get 2 more. That one day is vacation and sick leave. I work for a US based multi billion dollar company as an hourly employee.
Teachers make great money, get even better benefits, and work a part time job.  In Dallas, they start at over 50k, get a benefits package including early retirement that is impossible to get in the private sector, and only work 180 days a year.
Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.
Beware if injured on the job they will not add per diem to your wages meaning you make less and your wc benefits will be less !!
I think the problem with the pro living wagers on here is that they imagine that employers are in a position of privilege and that their money was given to them by benevolent employers who gave a shit about theri life conditions. This is almost never the case because business doesn't work like that.
Yep, I often think that baby boomers don't understand that there's inflation and that the salary they had years ago might not be good enough..  Sure, median income has decreased in the last decade, but it's no excuse for paying engineers 45K because they'll jump ship as soon as they put their resume on Monster and get offer of 60-80k.
$70k (plus 5-10% annual bonuses and medical/dental/vision 100% employer-paid) compared to $55k at my last gig (for a 28-year-old with a philosophy degree, I'm not complaining).  It's in San Diego, so CoL is pretty high.  I'm just happy that I'll be able to pay off my student loans.
Pretty fuck up that these companies want to brag about the people who spent their whole lives making them rich dying early makes them richer. They should feel bad and want a solution not brag about money saved. How about the money should go onto the families who said person who died?
Comcast is always hiring, and they pay pretty well. I know someone that I work with now, who worked at Comcast as a Commercial Installer. He traveled a couple times a year, but each time it was to some awesome island.   Take note, however, that he was laid-off. So, layoffs are a possibility there.   Also, if you are willing to take part-time work (which, if you have only debts and no wife or child, I absolutely suggest sacrificing your credit for a few years for this opportunity), I highly recommend getting on with UPS or USPS. You will start part-time and work your way up to full-time making over $55,000/yr.   Also, don't forget about truck driving. Long-haul truck driving pays around $55,000 your first year. Most companies will train you, so long as you sign up for a one-year contract. Some companies are Central Refrigerated, Knight Trucking, Gordon Trucking, Swift, Stevens Transport, etc. This is always an option, and I intended on doing this before having formed a family, but alas... Also, trucking can lead to better, more local jobs.
Proposed budge plan would limit any increase spent by the federal government on employee benefits. The amount paid would be limited to the rate of inflation. So if the cost of healthcare goes up 10% over time, and inflation goes up 2%, the employee and not the government picks up 8%. The result is that the government is protected from skyrocketing costs and can easily budget for the future.   I guess the individual is thought to be more capable somehow? Of is the individual, and not the government, more responsible for skyrocketing profits in the drug industry? Or does the GOP believe the government needs less reason to care about individual people and more reason to side with large corporate profits? Or maybe the thinking is simply that there will be more money available for tax cuts.  Perhaps newer good people will leave private industry to take lower paid federal jobs. But, maybe not as globalization seems to be dampening the compensation packages for all wage employees.
In short, defined contribution plans yield different amounts of return based on the market whereas defined benefit plans yield predetermined amounts defined based on factors such as salary and years of service.
"&gt;which those older individuals have only acquired after years, sometimes decades, of working with the company  Where do you work that doesn't supplement previously non-exempt  workers for temps &amp; interns? Which has 1970's - era retirement plans &amp; educational requirements on hiring, and a static level of worker representation over the decades? Where is this employer where hours haven't been extended?  I speak for myself, not a generation &amp; certainly not for ""pop culture"" - but it would be *hard* to enjoy the same standard of living my father did starting in his industry today. Not to mention *impossible* at the amount he paid for his education."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm  So... Average american gets 16 days PTO, and 7.6 paid holidays.  None of it required by law.  *Edit: Average american in the first year of their job in 1996.  Didn't bother looking for current rates, as I doubt it has changed substantially.  More current data can be researched and compiled from here: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2013/benefits_leave.htm
There is an IRS mandated rate for mileage reimbursement. I believe it's currently $0.55/mile. That covers gas, wear and tear, insurance, etc.   Not sure if they'd use that, but it's not like reimbursing people for driving their own car is a new problem to be solved.
Honestly? Literally anything else. The same way budgets have been done since the dawn of time. If you have a mandatory expense (livable wage because we're prioritizing human life over discretionary spending because ethics) you trim the fat from other areas to make it work.
Trust me, the plane ticket is the least of the expenses flying my co-worker out they will face.  His room, his meals outside of what they will serve him, etc.    he will steal every red cent he can from them because he is a filthy thief.
It cost a lot of money to pay the poet to make wording, designers/photographers to make the post-cards and miscellaneous staff (Executives, HR, shareholders etc.) These cost are thrown onto the buyers.
Of course this ignores that fact the companies remit some pretty hefty VAT (Value Added Taxes) when they sell all there stuff. There is a  20% VAT on what they sell, then subtract the VAT of the stuff they buy, and I'll ballpark they are sending a good 10% of Gross (So 300 million Pounds) to Her Majesty's Treasury every year. Not bad for selling overpriced coffee.
Firstly assumption is that  Now if expense is from your savings
Yes it is.  I work in pharmaceuticals. The company I work for right now doesn't deal with drugs directly because it is a contractor and the main expenses are wages, rent and IT infrastructure..much like a lot of other companies.  But the previous place I work for does contract manufacturing. How these guys stay in business is unreal. The cost of building a ~1000 sq ft clean room can easily be over 6 million, on top of the land and building that it is on. Then operating the room is in the thousands a day. So whenever the room is not being used, the clean room it's bleeding hundreds of dollars an hour.  On top of that, the fridges and freezers that is used to store specimens are insanely expensive. A regular fridge to store stuff at 2-8°C is upwards of $5k. Then you need to pay contractors to get it monitored 24/7.  Oh shipping the specimens to other labs? Each shipment costs at a minimum of $150. FedEx gets very little of it. The boxes it is shipped in and the temperature monitoring costs a ton.  That's not all. The lab(s) are also expensive to run.  All that is for a small pharmaceutical company...doing PRE-clinical stuff. If you up that scale, and hire better qualified/experience people, the costs goes up exponentially.  1 gallon of water that I used to use costs $50 or something (including the corporate discount that we got). It is insanely expensive to run a pharmaceutical company.
Approximately $6,000 a year on the healthcare marketplace (obamacare).   They can get away with a little cheaper for a plan with a huge deductible (ie $5,000), which could reduce their plan to $4k a year.       They also pay medicare tax of 2.9% of their income (1.45% from employee side, and 1.45% payroll taxes).  These pay for medical care for retirees.
In the UK maternity pay is covered by national insurance, which is as you describe.  That's not the problem though.  The problem is losing a member of staff for an undefined period of time, and having to train somebody to replace them which is not free.
looks like the US tax system needs an overhaul. You cant charge yourself arbitrary amounts to even out your bottom line.  Wel you and I cant, but apparently we just need to make more money to do so....thanks BK for showing me the way!!
Not to mention, nobody who's any good wants to be maternity cover. Plus nobody does any work once you give them notice so you have to wait for the original person to come back, then pay the mat cover to job search for a month.  Companies below a certain size get hit disproportionately hard by this because they're run with very little fat and there's nothing to pick up the slack.
I'm sure that's an argument O'Reilly and the others used just before they were shitcanned.  But the claims and lawsuits caused the company to lose a LOT more than just direct the legal costs, especially in lost ad revenue and brand damage.
Everything you say is true also of private companies, particularly ones that are publicly traded.  As a shareholder, you bet your ass I don't like it when the CEO I've hired is doing stupid shit like this instead of saving the company money and making me more money.
You're not too far off in your first example there. Though we've got separate departments for several of the things you've mentioned, which makes sense in the specialized industry that we are in, and makes me even more suspicious of our bloated HR group.
I've always said that the biggest expense the rich have to deal with is paying taxes while the poor's biggest expense is trying to survive. For example the poor have to pay more than half of their money buying food and while the rich pays almost nothing for food.
I mean its probably not set like that in a cynical sense, though yeah any time its coming from a private company it'll be as expensive as they think people can pay without losing their shit.   ps. things that are supposed to be human rights should just be on up to a certain amount. Obviously you don't want needless waste of resources so it'd be good to have some kind of overage fines.
There are several assumptions you made, that don't match the current laws: Costs: COBRA:
&gt; Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill  Of those, the only thing I don't pay are export, import and duties. Which, if you're going in to business for yourself you'd probably know about these already.
Putting extra people on their planes is a very low cost for them - basically just a few bucks for extra fuel they'll burn to move another 180 lb human through the air.  To help seal multi-million-dollar deals, it's fine.
Walmart, for example posted a profit of over $100B last year but their employees are draining over $6B from taxpayer funded programs (food stamps, healthcare subsidy, housing credits, etc). They're stealing from everyone to boost their profit margin and it can't keep happening. You need to get your head out of the clouds or your ass, not sure which.
"And he pays taxes which contribute to that, in an absolute dollar amount he probably pays more than most reddiors do combined and since his income is from a company and not capital gains his tax rate is definitely above 30% thus providing for the next generation.   He's not suggesting that he shouldn't pay any taxes at all, just not INCREASED taxes or liabilities. Those roads, schools, police were all funded just fine before this debate started--- not to mention these are all local taxes and the increased liabilities we are talking about are federally mandated, not locally.   We have a spending problem not a revenue problem, and the solution begins with gutting military spending and it ends with a very serious discussion and long term look at social security and medicare. It's only when the government wants military AND those other services that private individuals and industries are squeezed with additional overhead cost liabilities.   Thing is this guy has done what he has done for 40+ years and has seen 5-10 presidential administrations and the message and policy goals change everytime. His resistance is related to additional burdens put on him and his company. It is then his responsibilty to decide whether that extra weight is worth it... plain and simple... just as you would do... just as any company would and does do.   This particular event has been sensationalized by his own and observer's emotions, but I don't think he's in the wrong here. Most of the people criticizing him will never come anywhere close to contributing in tax revenue the amount that he does, not to mention jobs.   We need more passionate people sparking debate, but unfortunately so many people, on reddit especially feel the economy, government and business has not served them well, but the government is the only one offering them the ""promise"" of a tiny bit better. Private industry cannot yield confidence or national attention the way the government can, but the government is notoriously inefficent at distibuting and administrating programs. But the net result is people will vote for a populist agenda such as letting young people stay on their parent's health insurance, while living at home, when what they really want is a $75,000 - 100,000/year job and the freedom that brings to go after your ambitions."
Not necessarily.  You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins.  Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin.  Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion.
Money is fungible. The same dollars that went to subsidize health care for those employees could have been used to build about 1500 miles of new interstate highway, or 1000 schools.  This is nothing more than a decrease in walmart's tax rate.
Nobody said they paid for it up front.  They still pay for it.  The businesses are definitely making money off the work.    Unless you are saying the businesses don't make money off of it, and are accruing a loss?  Do you expect us to believe that?
Is there a way in bloomberg to calculate the total return if one purchased $100 worth of 10 Year US Notes at time X and perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present?   I've been able to historically use the COMP function to compare equity and ETF total returns, but curious if this function can be expanded to measure returns against commodities, treasuries, and other debt products. Unfortunately im having trouble pulling in the appropriate continuous commodity and treasury tickers.
It looks like the interest rate on bonds from 1995 is at least 1.41%. If it is from the earlier part of the year, the interest rate is 4%. Even if it is the latter, I'd say it is worth keeping, although you could likely do better in a CD, it would lock your money up. I'd consider it a part of my bond allocation in my investments and up the equity a little. You can use this link to get actual prices and interest rates: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/BC/SBCPrice
If it's anything IG that's likely an annualized figure. I previously sold CP over short term windows at 1% annualized. Else, it would generate a high long term gain, but you need to weigh a variety of factors versus gains, particularly if you're investing any meaningful sum of money. I'm not a bond trader.   Unless it's some kind of payday loan...
"1.65% is the annualized interest rate. If it is pail semi-annually, you'd get 8.23 every 6 months.   And yes, if the YC is upward sloping, it means that 30 years t-bills pay higher interest. Thats a premium they pay for having your money locked in for a long time. It makes sense if you consider that they'd pay you that rate (say 2%) for the next 30 years. If for some reason interest rates in 25 years from now are like 15-20% (like they were 25 years ago) and inflation around the same rate, you'd still only be making 2%, on top of bleeding purchasing power of your initial investment. That's why long-term bonds require a premium.   That being said, sometimes you get an ""inverted yield curve"", where yield's fall with the longer maturities. Look that up."
Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year.  Sell the bond immediately for $960.  Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year.  You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow.  In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.
They offer a coupon that is 40% to 60% the actual amount that it could in theory offer, if not for delinquent cases.... the banks pocket the difference in the name to be able to pay up consistently..... not a pretty picture but it covers their ass
The forward curve for gold says little, in my opinion, about the expected price of gold. The Jan 16 price is 7.9% (or so) higher than the Jan 12 price. This reflects the current cost of money, today's low interest rates. When the short rates were 5%, the price 4 years out would be about 20% higher. No magic there. (The site you linked to was in German, so I looked and left. I'm certain if you pulled up the curve for platinum or silver, it would have the identical shape, that 7.9% rise over 4 years.) The yield curve, on the other hand,  Is said to provide an indication of the direction of the economy, a steep curve forecasting positive growth.
Now sweetums . .its the Fed that buys US treasuries to keep the Yield down  . . .wait but how can that be?  How can the Fed be the biggest holder of US treasuries . . .that would be like sucking your own dick . . .but hey . .its good for the economy  Its a good thing we have bred fucking Morons or the dollar might go into hyper inflation if Americans knew how to add