vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can't    Your problem is that no one will value you new currency call it bytecoin. People will ask why is the bytecoin worth anything and you don't have an answer. You employees will have worthless currency and be effectively making under minimum wage.   Its the same as if you printed Charles dollars with your face instead of George Washington, no one would take them for real money or be willing to trade them for services or food. Bitcoin's basis of value is that many people will trade real services or other currencies for it, but it took decades for this willingness to use bitcoin to build, and mostly because of the useful features of bitcoin, it can protect anonymity is easy to transfer world wide and many more. Even with those features the value of bitcoin is very volatile and unreliablie because it lacks backing. How many decades are your employees willing to wait, what amazing new features will you nontechnical staff add that bitcoin lacks?
If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly."
If it weren't for the anti-government sentiment preventing it, you could get the same effect simply by having the government hire a LOT more people at the low-end of the socioeconomic scale - people like teachers, policemen, firefighters, rangers, etc., especially if that hiring included proper training for people who didn't already have it.  This would create a defacto minimum wage, since private industry would have to compete for workers, without requiring them by law to adhere to some predefined compensation packages.  This would have a been a MUCH better way to use the hundreds of billions that the Fed has used to provide stimulus to the economy, instead giving it to the big banks &amp; letting them play securities games with it.  Of course, with the anti-government sentiment (and the lack of ability to control how the big bucks get handed out to political donor industries), fat chance of a straightforward solution like this ever being implemented.
It depends.  If they're giving the coupons *in addition to* the wages, then I see no problem.  If they're substituting all or some of their wages with these coupons, **and** the employee didn't agree to this from the start, then I can see a moral issue with this.
***** [**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."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **pay**^#1 **wage**^#2 **work**^#3 **want**^#4 **people**^#5"
Shut up you whiners!  Do you realize how badly CEOs, Wall St hedge fund managers, Bank executives, large-block shareholders and billionaires work for and deserve their money?!  Your getting a raise would CUT their income -- income that fuels the machines of trickle-down which benefit everybody!       [/s]
Maybe employers and corporations should pay a living fucking wage? And here comes all the cunts shitting on workers and defending corporate prosperity. We're all fucked and those people are fucking us even more by defending this 1% First and Fuck The Rest Mentality.
"I agree to some degree, but I've gotten very jaded over the past 25 years. You could have the best boss in the world, be working on a fantastic project, have a solid career path, and they'll still throw you out like yesterday's trash if anyone says ""recession""  So my philosophy is more tactical (month to month) than strategic (build a career). And it's rooted in this:  &gt;I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work  Except that I've come to believe in a fair hour's pay for a fair hour's work, because on salary it seems that a ""fair day's work"" is never less than eight hours but frequently more. Put in twelve hours on a project in crunch time? Here's your standard eight hours pay. Work Saturday on something that saves the company fifteen million dollars? Here are two vouchers for dinner at the Outback Steakhouse and we'll see you Monday morning."
Give this article a read https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/11/amazon-accused-of-intolerable-conditions-at-scottish-warehouse  No one is suggesting he pays them so much money that they can go off and start their own biz.  &gt;allegations that workers have been penalised for sick days and that some are camping near one of its warehouses to save money commuting to work.  There are many other such articles claiming similar poor working conditions.   &gt;workers could walk up to 10 miles a day doing their jobs, water dispensers were regularly empty.  Unless HR use water as an incentive, I feel their are ways workers experience can be improved that don't make a mess of HR's plans.
"&gt;So why not talk to your employer, and ask them to pay you in gold dust? Then when tax time comes, just convert some gold dust into the amount of USD in taxes you owe.   Because selling gold and buying dollars has an effect on the market:  it reduces the value of gold, and increases the value of dollars.  Understand?  So being forced to use dollars *artificially increases the value of dollars*.  The reason we are forced to use Dollars is because the central bank has the monopoly on printing dollars.  Without legal tender laws, that monopoly would be worthless.  &gt;Of course, you'd have to find farmers and shoemakers and electronic stores willing to accept payment in gold dust as well...  As the value of gold increases over time, the government taxes the increased value as ""capital gains tax"".  So gold cannot be money under these circumstances - the government considers it an investment now."
"Increasing wages need not increase prices.  Remember a simple phrase:  ""Just compensation for services"", which is one that fiscal conservatives used to love.  Apply it at all steps of the ladder and see how much flatter the pay ""topology"" gets."
So they basically tried to make their antiquated methods faster, rather than improve their methods.  Okay.  Not what I would have done.  And apparently they aren’t advertising their improvements well, either.  What I don’t see in that document is the percentage of people making less or more in all, so I can’t tell if large numbers of people on one side or another are skewing the average in a direction, nationally or in the government itself.  Those numbers would give us the whole picture, rather than a distorted picture.  Also, it seems the average wage is only $3.00 / hour higher, so that’s something.  Your “socialist Universal price” quip tells you are definitely seeing with distorted glasses.  Let it go for a little bit, not to change your mind, but to verify you are seeing as clearly as possible.  They keep the wages basically equal across the U.S. because they are a nation-wide entity that has to be internally self-consistent.
My point was not so much to advocate higher pay for these guys as to point out that some of these folks may actually have worthwhile skills, but can't find better work. I just think it's a mistake to assume they're lazy scum, that's all. At least, that's what I took away from reading snook's paragraph.
This looks pretty good. Do you use their payroll software at all? Currently I am using Gusto and it is pretty automatic with some nice integrations (time tracking software, etc.).  It sounds like if you can accomplish everything with Wave's platform it is a really good option.
Maybe it only counts those who are actually worthy of work for pay based on this new economic era. Those who over spent for what they thought they were worth or made poor choices are most likely the ones complaining or have princess syndrome
Why does everything have to be low margin and low cost? Why can't it be decent healthy products and jobs, and consumers paying the cost because your average consumer is getting paid more.   As far as an agenda, what better agenda than supporting people getting paid a livable wage, and both the employees and company thriving!
"Two comments on your calculations: I worked for many years at a community college (Ontario, Canada) where I received an annual salary for the contract period Sept 1, Year N, to August 31, Year (N + 1). For most of that time, the system was 26 pay-cheques a year, one every 14 days. Payroll made most mandatory deductions (union dues, pension, etc.) on a monthly basis, assigning them to one or the other of the two cheques each month.  So there was a fairly large variation in the net amount received in the two cheques.  Plus there were those two ""extra"" cheques each year with very few deductions. (as in the answer of @Kate Gregory) Additionally, Payroll was smart enough to make the last cheque of the contract year for a slightly odd amount, just the correct amount to bring the total gross amount paid to the actual contractual salary, evening out any extra days or rounding error. They would restart the payment schedule anew on the second Thursday in September."
You really have no idea what you're talking about right now. You jump to nonsensical conclusions.  Wages in the US can not support the economy. Until you can accept that I know I'm dealing with someone who believes ideology over reality.
(xposted comment from a discussion in /r/economics)  I work for (and am a cooperative owner of) [Equal Exchange](http://www.equalexchange.coop). We are a food and beverage company.  We have a pretty conventional management structure and division of labor. We all get regular paychecks (and awesome benefits). The  company did over $55 million in sales last year and has been profitable for 23 of the last 24 years (don't ask us about 1997. We lost $7,000).  What's different? Well, last year, every single worker/owner got the same share of the profits: about $6,500. Didn't matter what your job was.  Also, the board its entirely elected by the workers: one worker, one vote. Only the workers can nominate and vote for the board. Six if the nine members of the board are workers. They can fire the CEO (and we did once). The workers as a whole have to approve major (really major) decisions, and also any changes to the company bylaws.  It's a crazy company that most textbooks would say is impossible, yet here we are.  [Here](http://equalexchange.coop/about/annual-reports) are our annual reports. In 2013 we had $56 million in sales and $2.65 million in pre-tax profits. We buy almost all our products from small-farmer co-operatives, and we sell our products to virtually every consumer grocery co-operative in the US (among many other places).  Edit: fixed typos
"Holy shit, man. I'm applying to graduate school for Organizational Psychology right now and that's the kind of thing I want to prevent. I like where your head's at, going with the hourly wages. The past four months I've had more work piled on me because my boss quit and I won't be seeing anything close to a raise for another 8 months because I was temporary for the first six months then was technically only ""hired"" in April, meaning I'm not eligible for a raise until my ""one-year"" which was *actually* this month.   Fucked up things like that are happening all over the country. At Microsoft, staffing agencies get paid $30/hr for their employees' work (who are working AT Microsoft but are staffing agency employees) and the employees see about 30% of that. The agency doesn't have to do anything but rake in the cash, it's absolute bullshit.   I'm very happy that you were straight forward with your boss, because people need to hear that. UNFORTUNATELY, it's going to reflect poorly on you, and that's also fucked up. I have a coworker who spends half the day screwing around on various websites, but since he stays late, he's seen as more dedicated. It's ridiculous. God, I'm so proud of you. Sorry boss, *fuck you,* if you want 50 hours pay me for 50 hours. It's a business contract. You wouldn't sit there and watch a plumber unclog your toilet for 30 minutes then ask him to go unclog your shower too but not pay for that service, would you? Apparently some people would."
It's a lot of conjecture but definitely take a look at the Australian economy.  Their minimum wage is over $12 an hour and prices have reached an equilibrium with that number as their starting point.  Money is all relative, there aren't easy solutions for low skilled labor besides subsidizing their lifestyle.    Too early to source stuff.
Free market wages on top of living wage?  UBI doesn't dictate that all forms of payment be stopped, just that the govt provides costs of living in the form of either a weekly check, or as your tax refund with a basic of CoL deducted on top of your work related purchases.  The free market can expand all it wants on top of that, it's just that now everyone has a fallback when the free market contracts as it inevitably will because infinite growth only works if you have infinite resources to fuel infinite growth.
LET US BET ON IT THEN. IF YOU DON'T BET, ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG OR A COWARD.   The terms of the bet are this: All IT employees do not get OT (which you believe because you know the industry and have never met a person who is a counter-example). If this is true, you win, if I can provide a counter-example, I win. How much would you like to wager?
"If anything, this makes their salary even more stupid, in light of the fact that we already have a system that does their job.  We don't pay people to dig tunnels by hand anymore.  We don't pay people to taste the Queen's food to make sure it isn't poisoned.  If a job is dangerous and can be automated, it is stupid pay for the hazard of doing the job.  Now, I am not crying for the automation of all menial jobs.  People need to work and not everyone can do educated labor.  It's just that certain jobs are better suited to automation.  We should not pay out the ass for the hazard, insurance, and lawsuits that result from such jobs.  It's like paying a human 500k to perform the job of ""suspicious bomb parcel opener.""  Sit back and let the robots breathe the fumes, get blown up, get crushed, etc."
Well, it's a pain in the ass and industries vary...  At $15/hr in my industry in my state, take home can be as low as $12 and cost about $24...  This puts a huge strain on entry positions and wage growth...  Plus with payroll taxes, wages can almost never outpace Inflation...  If employers give a 10% raise to workers, it costs 15% and their take-home only increases 8% (random fictional numbers, but close)...  So what we've done is increased  cost of living by nearly twice every wage increased...  It's a dog chasing its tail...
Why? Grocery stores had minimum wage employees as well. You made no sense at all there. People not being able to pay slave wages and still maintain huge corporate profits, OMG the horror! Yeah it's those god damn waiters and cooks needing to pay rent and bills fault! Yeah same to ya.  Oh and reading comprehension is a thing. I said I've run several businesses. One was a restaurant and bar too!
I think this is the biggest problem right here. A salary should be enough to raise a family of 4 on. This should be the actual minimum wage.   We already have the productivity for this. Look at how high the un-employment rate around the globe.
The government is this countries largest monopoly and rent seeker, whose interests run divergent to our own, and which must be managed closely by the governed lest it becomes an arbitrary regime beholdent to no other authority but its own.  If you've watched congress at all, you know how quickly these people can write away the rights and privileges of their constituents.  http://work.chron.com/average-salary-government-employees-7863.html
I would speak to your employer about direct deposit into one of your local casinos.  Its a simple matter of then arranging to purchase said lottery tickets with the casino's chips.  For a small convenience fee, I would imagine you could also arrange to have the casino automatically convert the chips to lottery tickets, redeem the winning tickets for you and give you a weekly report of your winnings.  Hope this helps.
Not by you. Your bank might have to fill some reports for the IRS, but for the customer, nothing needs to be done. As long as the money is not income from illegal activity you don't need to worry about it.
From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.
It is possible that they only do the hold on the first deposit from a given source. It is probably worth asking if they intend to do the hold on every paycheck or just the first one.
It's not something for nothing. Tiger woods made billion dollars. He gave half to his wife. 500m sitting making money in investments. His only skill is swinging a stick at a ball and hitting it exactly where it needs to be. Now he is making 50m a year off his investments. Not sure if you noticed, America has a 600b deficit. That taxation creates federal jobs. And jobs employed by payments of the federal government. Good hard working people.
Np shit dipshit. But if you think you won't pay taxes, then you have your head up your ass. As long as you live here, work here, earn an income here... you are paying taxes here. Hey, but I hear there are no taxes in Somalia... Enjoy!
I applaud all forms of tax evasion.  Considering that taxation is nesesary for on-going war, it's highly immoral to pay your taxes.  It will only lead to death.  However, it sounds like they're paying lots of taxes.  46 + 11.7 = 57.7%  How is that a loophole?  Sounds like they're getting shellacked.
I never said anyone should pay income tax on minimum wage. Why did you instantly turn this discussion into a Right V Left war? The point was the 30% threshold is too low as you in fact get 100% takehome to work with.
Yep, you got me.  I misread that portion.  That must mean everything else I said must be false.  Looks like it is time for you to move on to the next uneducated poor soul and save the world, one tax loving citizen at a time....
Think about it... If the government has the money why would the government need more money to cover the tax on the money that the government already has?  Couldn't the government just withhold 109,500 from the 1,900,000 it's holding already?
Im pretty sure its a moral application of the forceful basis of taxation.  And most people get rich by providing goods and services, or via investing in goods in services. The rest, the hyperwealthy banksters, international weapons/ death merchants, wall street, fraudsters, the-good-ole-boys-network, etc... that was via government, and its probably not a good idea to give them more.  Pay your taxes, please. I dont want them to ruin your life.
Taxes are part of the social contract. Deal with it. Or move to Somalia. Also, capital (aka, the rich) continues to capture more and more income and wealth, while labor stagnates. Interestingly, this correlates with our economic stagnation. Could be something to that.
And yet they still do not realise that Uber is not a source of income! It is nothing but a payday loan scam, where you borrow money against your future self, and pay Uber 25% of it.  But if you think 5 or 6 cents a mile is a valid income, before tax(!) - then please do carry on!
Lol I'm not even talking about no government (although that's ideal) you're just retarded to think income tax is the ONLY way to fund a government. Like I said before a federal sales tax would more than suffice and in a lot of cases would work better but please by all means continue to live in ignorance. Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way.
That's the way society works. I pay for my local schools (both in CA and OK). I'm okay with that because it is the kind of society I want to live in. I also pay a fuckload for the military. I'm not sure I'm getting good value for those payments.
Yet, if you are wealthy enough to have already accumulated the bulk of your savings, they're going to treat your capital gains much more favorably than the wage income of the poor shlub who's still trying to make these contributions. I can't wait to see how they attempt to sell this to the average taxpayer.
"Because without central authority, you cannot actually change the price of a good permanently. By trying to tie taxes on income into cost of living for ""basic living""(whatever that means) you've changed the entire discussion and are essentially useless to it. Stop attempting to showboat your concerns by derailing other's discussions."
"&gt;Good luck arguing that in court while defending non-payment of taxes. Might want to look up Wesley Snipes court case - not like this hasn't been argued before.  OKAY. So your argument is ""Well, the *government* doesn't think your arguments against them are very good!""  I think you might have to actively try in order to reach this level of wrong and misguided."
yea, well, did you also know that federal bucks for 8 years went to an Obama fund to feed his preferred agenda com-padres?  people (like you) think the money goes into some wonderful fund, like one that reduces taxes/expenses...no, it's [government rip off money](http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/bank-mortgage-fines-wall-street/) that feeds its own interests
If they know/agree that they owe you money, they will send it to you, unless you explicitly told them to apply it to next year's taxes.
&gt; It claims to own a large portion of your income...  No, it takes money to pay for services provided to you. The public agreed to this transaction by electing representatives that negotiated the amount you would pay and the services you would receive in exchange.  Or do you believe you have a right to not pay for a military that protects you?
yeah because boycotting works (insert sarcasm here). Anyway, everyone knows that gov'ts need money but when they are spending that same money for stupid stuff like spying on the people that pay them, it can make people feel less than comfy with the situation. The bottom line is that the purchased politicians keep these loopholes open allowing US companies to make moves of this nature and then appear on TV and deride them for being law abiding. Sure it violates the spirit of the law and it's pretty unethical BUT.....it's legal and they wrote the law so there's no crime being committed. I would guess that EVERY citizen would love to pay zero taxes. How can we be mad at the companies that have found a way to pull it off? If you can't beat them, join them.
I don't even know what you're arguing at this point.  We have this collective, our nation.  We need to fund it somehow to sustain it.  We do that with taxes.  If someone doesn't want to be part of the collective they can always move away and renounce their citizenship.
"&gt;It is a legitimate form of dodging taxes.  I don't see how it's ""dodging"" if you're following the law.   &gt;There is nothing bad about not wanting to hand over money you earned to the government.  On this I agree wholeheartedly."