vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This article is very one-sided and absolutist. It also pulls the struggles from one industry and uses that as a basis to declare resumes are a useless part of the hiring process in general. What works for a Tech start up doesn't work for someone hiring a nurse or an accountant or a salesperson.   Most egregious is that this article completely ignores the point of a resume. Of course anyone using a resume to make a hiring decision will see poor results. A resume is there to be able to pare down your candidate pool to see who you are interested to bring in for interviews and eventually assessments to learn more about them.   It is also pretty easy to verify employment history with a single call or services like The Work Number. You can provide assessments and ask interview questions to see if someone really knows the information they claim to know on a resume.   In order to remove the resume from the hiring process, you have to solve the issue of being able to easily and effectively narrow down a pool of applicants while having a tangible summary of education, experience, skills, etc. Online methods of eliminating applications by keywords have shown to exclude highly qualified candidates. Until such a method is discovered, the resume is still by far the best took to summarize a candidate, and to decide who you want to learn more about.
&gt; He added that the company will be providing ... outplacement services, including a job fair with local IT employers.  Why even bother with the charade: If Lowes doesn't see the need the need to hire in this country, why should anybody else?  It is a [good idea](http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra-1434) for *everybody else* to carpool or use mass transit.
How do tax cuts for a corporation decrease available labor or increase demand for labor?  I know wages are complex but what company is going to get a tax cut and say, “Ya know what, we’re not paying as much taxes so raises for everyone.”?  Maybe if the company uses that money to buy stuff, there will be demand on those companies that produce those products.
Furthermore, in 2003 when the Nissan plant expanded in Canton, MS (suburb of Jackson), which is a very similar job market to Montgomery, AL, three times as many people [applied](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/837740/posts). Keep in mind that the job market was pretty good in Jackson at the time. Basically, they open these plants in the South where labor is cheap and Union strength is low. For the applicants, one of these jobs could be the key to a better future due to a pay rate that is much higher than the local average. Not only is this the case for uneducated and unskilled workers, but it is even attractive to those who are educated and likely underpaid due to the economics of the region.  TL;DR Nothing to see [here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/30/1096008/-When-good-jobs-are-available-the-queue-goes-around-the-block)...
Yes I understand perfectly what they're doing. They're artificially driving down wages by flooding the supply of workers. They justify this by crying out that there is a shortage. You bet I don't like it. It's sad that you advocate such practice.
It is a sign of the times. Companies like Monster.com apply to jobs all over the world for their clients, and flood companies with resumes. If you mean this is a metric highly correlated to unemployment, then you are incorrect. Job applications for one job at a Hyundai plant in Alabama are not, in fact, a sign of the times.
They had to do something like this, they need to figure out more ways of making money. Linkedin does something like this for recruiters for on their site, its only sensical for Facebook to do the same. They now just need a way to profit from mobile..
Ok, cool, feel free to browse this post and all responses. By all means I realize jobs are your paying customers, but my thought is if the site were trafficked enough by job seekers, like indeed is, you can dominate and set the tone to better aide job seekers and boost the economy with job placement.   I think the job posters are abusing their paid privileges and bs'ing too much waste their time and job seekers time. I think a form field with more questions and restrictions in the template will do a lot of good. Imagine a 40 hr week sifting through job sites currently. It's hell.   https://www.reddit.com/r/jobs/comments/6thr7k/if_you_could_change_the_navigationcategorization/?st=J6LFPY6J&amp;amp;sh=4ca9e3fa  I also posted in user interface design and will get that link for you to gain that feedback as well.
"In reality, though, it's essentially impossible to enforce in this case. Sure, a woman could sue if she didn't get the job, and the company might settle to avoid the headache, but I don't think it would be hard to defend with a ""we chose a more qualified candidate"" or some variation, whether true or not."
"&gt;Please explain who is being held down in this situation. An employment agreement is voluntary. Wages are set by supply and demand.  Please study the history of the labor movement in the United States. There's a reason we're paid actual money and not ""company bucks."" Because businesses WILL find a way to pay employees nothing if they can.   &gt; So you want to violently intervene and kill off the livelihoods of people because they voluntarily work for a business you deem too unprofitable to exist?  No. I want to ensure that the price paid for labor matches its real cost. Again, study the labor movement.  &gt;The jobs will be replaced by machines and the people whose jobs you killed now live 100% on the dole, likely forever. Most of the people affected will be minorities. I can't imagine a more heinous and racist act of economic violence.  Sounds like the same fucking thing people (racists) said during the labor movement.  &gt; Individuals who would rather see perfectly able bodied people 100% on the dole rather than providing for themselves should be ashamed. Seriously, fuck you and fuck your violent and racist policies.  People who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Seriously, fuck you and your complete and total ignorance of history and complete lack of understanding about basic economic theory."
&gt; walmart hires them because they have a low marginal utility undeserving of a higher wage. if they could get a higher wage somewhere else, they would.  It's this way for every region, right?  &gt;i'm mad at the government for giving them aid. i don't think i should have control over a private business. but im supposed to have control over my government.   ...  &gt;Wal-Mart is transferring the cost of labor onto the taxpayers.  You are your government, it's why you vote for representatives to be assigned. So you are mad at yourself for not ensuring the prosperity of your own government... Good commenting!
"Pardon the pun, but these are the ""fruits"" of the Jobsian ""reality distortion field"".  That, and the fact that being a ""desirable job"" (in the form of ""playing with gadgets"") there is an apparently endless supply of applicants...  So the law of supply &amp; demand applies to the wages. Probably the thing that is most surprising is the fact that Apple Store employees are somehow earning ABOVE the minimum wage.  Apple would probably have about the same supply/quality of people, no matter how low the wages were."
"Jobs do indeed create work, which gives people an income, which allows them to spend money, which increases demand thus creating jobs. I was just pointing out that it is circular, in a very simplified way.   *You know... from the article... that we are commenting on? Redistribution of wealth?*  quote: ""The problem with this idea, however, isn't that putting more money into the hands of consumers won't increase consumer demand (it will),""  Should I take a screenshot and put it on imgur for you?"
You cannot just cherry pick 1 quarter and say 'corporate profits are up' - I beleive they were up 16 billion in the quarter you referenced. Should I reference 4th quarter 09' when they were down [250.3 Billion] (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/gdp109p.htm)  &gt;The cost of labor right now can't support consumption in our economy. That is the simplest of economics.** What you're doing is claiming that businesses will be able to hike up prices without repercussions from consumers.**  I am saying exactly the opposite - there will be repercussions. Corporations would be forced to increase pricing - consumers would obviously take note - nullifying your perceived increase in demand bolstered by their increased wages. ****  I think you are attaching a straw man that I think there is enough demand - there isn't I agree with you - I am stating your solution to that problem (companies reducing profit margin by maintaining selling prices and boosting wages) would not increase demand.
"&gt;walmart hires them because they have a low marginal utility undeserving of a higher wage.  No, the job they do at Wal-Mart has a low marginal utility.  Human beings don't have one innate ""marginal utility"" statistic on a cosmic character sheet, you know."
I really like your mindset about this. One strategy I'm going to implement with my job site, without giving too much away, is treating a job Seeker profile and a job provider very similarly and creating a hub for both. It also treats job postings like more of a commodity, and just focuses on other things that I'll get into in the company develops more.
Here's an idea Microsoft,      Take the 10 to 15 thousand dollars that you were going to pay just for the H1-B Visas, and develop a training program where you accept anyone with a Master's Degree in anything (just as proof they can learn), and redevelop your own workforce in a training environment. Make the commitment from the workers 3-5 years and make the pay less than an average starting engineer/whatever you need. After the 3-5 years, they have the option of staying or going and you better make the package more attractive to keep them if you want them to stay. Simple as a pimple, doesn't need foreign workers or politics and actually creates more customers since it's very unlikely any of the citizen workers will be sending money home to foreign families remaining in country.
Yes. And employer's often make you buy required uniforms from *them* and keep then in serviceable condition until you need to..... buy them again.... from them of course. That's not to mention upholding certain health and grooming standards. Again good luck with that when you can barely afford food and have to go to work sick because you have no sick days (even if you DO!). Hopefully you work in food service and can eat cake. Maybe they'll even *let* you without having to sneak it behind their back.
"It's somewhat addicting - their ""Picture Yourself In This Job"" feature that shows your picture as it would appear at the top of your profile, yet with a different company/title. Always makes you wonder, and has had me look into the advertised position a few times."
Anytime you mention Wal-mart's employment, it's almost always the biggest (fill in the blank) because it's the country's biggest private employer.  It employs 4 times more people than #2 (McDonalds).  About 1 / 150 Americans work for Wal-Mart.  It's crazy.
As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan."
Some other store will pop up that isn't a corporate slave wage shop with local employees that actually know how computers and electronics work.  Hell some of might have commission, it's crazy how much more actually helpful an employee is when commission is involved in a store where people can easily spend thousands...
"It is probably a strategy.  Apple could clearly afford to pay them more.  They could double the salary of all their sales staff and you'd barely even notice on Apple's bottom line.  But I think their strategy is to offer a salary that is a bit higher than the competition but not so high that you wind up with sales staff that never leave.  I don't think they want ""lifers"".  They probably like the churn of fresh new Apple enthusiasts coming in each year."
Interesting. Where I work (US) we don't have that problem as males get parental leave benefits too (not legally mandated, just a perk). I would imagine this is more of an issue with small companies rather than large enterprises, would be interesting to see a breakdown of the survey responders and their company size
am I comparing apples and oranges? Yes - different purposes, different laws, different regulations.  One rationale could be that HSA benefits are immediate while retirement benefits are deferred, so the benefit of employer contributions are not felt until retirement and thus do not need as stringent a limit, but that's a complete guess.
You are right, but my point is that high wages/benefits cost money. If consumers aren't willing to pay for them, then, why do we expect it?  In a selfish society where everyone looks only for their short-term gain, these kind of things are inevitable...
&gt; Why are you against making sure their pensions are funded?  Pension actuarial analyst here:  Pensions can give employee's benefits for time worked long before the plan came into existence.  Those 'liabilities' are paid off over 30-40 years.  It's absolutely normal.  In addition, pension plans may also pay off increases in benefits, such as an early retirement window, over that same 30-40 years.  Pension funds use assumptions on future investment earnings to 'guess' their contribution.  Sometimes, they don't earn as much as they expect the plan to earn.  Sometimes, they try to keep contributions low *as an alternative to scrapping the plan entirely*.  So putting this all together:  if pension plans are instantly and always 100% funded?  You don't get pension plans, with defined and guaranteed retirement benefits.  You get plans where the employee defers their own money into accounts, with no particular guarantees at all.  And that's why we are fine with unfunded pensions.  Oh, by the way, the PBGC charges higher fees to covered pension plans that have more unfunded liability!  So if a company doesn't want to pay contributions, they have to pay more elsewhere.  It all evens out.
and not doctors and pharmaceuticals? Hospitals, pharmaceuticals, Med Schools and medical equipement manufacturers all see higher profit margins than insurers. There is a reason people always quote the profit of insurers in terms of real value and not profit margin, its to disguise who is doing the fleecing.
There are a few ideas:  1. Basic income allows consumers to keep spending.   2. Consumers spend money saved through new tech, at things that require lots of human labor.  3. The government pays business to take care of people.    4. Maybe businesses will be a new kind of entity , one that doesn't seek to make money, something new we'll think about. Maybe something like today's non-profits.   5. If consumers got $1B in salaries from businesses, and spent $1B in salaries at businesses, did businesses get anything from consumers ? maybe the money is just a fiction ,and we'll find some other fiction ?
&gt; Monetizing the internet outside of advertising would be a boon to the economy and jobs....people just can't see it.  Yeah of course it would be. No one is disputing that.  &gt; If everyone paid for things, you know like pre-internet...  Okay, junior, so how are we going to get people to pay for things?
"This is basically like saying so many poor people are ""leaches"" or lazy or whatever. Unless it's fraud, if they qualify for benefits, why not use them?  If you want them to stop, change the laws so less people qualify. If you want companies to stop doing this, change the laws so they can't."
Honest question, in UK, who pays the salary while the woman is on the maternity leave?  I bet it's not the employer.  If so, any cost concern is bullshit, and if the person (or rather a group thereof) can't step in effectively, the place has bigger issues stemming from poor management.  tl;dr: the only reason for this discrimination is that management is **bad**.
Sure there is expense, however anyone who raises their kids even with the hint of frugality will never come close to their base numbers.    My wife and I both worked before three having kids and at least for us the outgoing costs pretty much the same as the money spent without kids.  How, you say?  Because you budget on what you make.  What changes when you have kids is your lifestyle and how you spend your money.  Bar tab = diapers, weekend getaways = 1 big disney vaction,  convertible = minivan, etc.    There is an opportunity cost, but according to these folks they seem to be assuming you are spending money you are normally saving on kids, when in truth you would have more than likely spent it on yourself.
As a consultant I charge my clients by the hour of my time they're occupying, not just my productivity.  That means when I walk to the printer, task a colleague, scan an incoming email, go pee, time taken to tally productive tasks, or take an ergonomic stretch break are client paid non-value added work.   Professions that track billable hours are not tracking productivity.  Some more than others are definitely more productive in a given hour, but productivity will vary by the person and skill level.
Much of the absurdity of that amount comes from them adding up all of the time parents spend with their kids, and assuming that the value of that time is the same as if the parents were working during all those hours.  As if, if they weren't parents, they would be spending 120 a week at their job.  It's a nonsense way to evaluate cost for this situation.    Opportunity cost makes sense in business decisions, not in parenting.
Citizens of Reddit, why must we care about workers making $9/hr when you own [electronics made by workers in Foxconn earning $1.87/hr](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/01/us-foxconn-idUSTRE6902GD20101001)   Maybe some of you fail to see the point, would you pay more money for your computer, if it meant workers had a wage increase? Would you pay more money for your goods in walmart?  This may seem harsh and some of you may be in denial, but the fact is the american people have spoken with our wallets not our hearts. This post is in /r/business where we know profit margin is the key to successful company
You can illustrate why expense ratio fees are in the numerator with an extreme example:  Let's say you have $100 in a mutual fund, their expense ratio is 50%, your nominal return is 900% and inflation is 900%.  Thus, without the expense, your investment would give you $100 in present value (because your return and inflation are identical), and $1000 in future value.  So with the expense ratio of 50% and no change in present value, you can reason that you would expect the expense ratio will eat half the present value.  If you apply your equation and include expenses in the numerator, you end up with:  ((100 - 100(.50))*(1+9))/(1+9) = $50 present value as you would expect  If you apply the manager's assumption that fees are applied external to inflation, then you end up with:  (100 * (1 + 9))/(1+9) - (100 * (1+9) * .50) = $-400 present value.  With this example you can see applying the fees externally acts as though they are charging you the fees on future returns today.  *Edit:  It's probably not worth fighting with someone senior to you over, as inflation rates are noisy estimates to begin with and the difference between these is typically not material to the decision being made; but pissing off someone senior by showing them their math is off will probably have a material impact on you.
-Leverandører utfører tjenester utenfor omfanget av praksis eller lisensiering (for eksempel det har nylig vært tilfeller av utøvere gir Botox injeksjoner med materialer Hentet fra andre land). -Ulisensiert enkeltpersoner utfører forsikringsverdien. -Behandling tilbys utover det som er nødvendig for forsikrede pasienten. -Det er kickbacks eller ulovlig henvisning betalinger. Eksempler på rapporterte tilfeller over Canada er en ansatt som ble fanget opprette krav for ham og hans kone av utskrift falske kvitteringer. Han ble til slutt fanget av en årvåken krav dommer som la merke til lignende mønstre i krav sendt til ulike forsikringsselskaper. Ikke bare det, men mistenkt prøvde å maksimere sin avkastning ved å koordinere fordeler over flere forsikringsgivere. Ansatte har også funnet for å opprette krav for flere personer i selskapet planen bruker Photoshop, en skanner, og en fargeskriver opprette falske men realistiske krav. Ordningen lederen rekrutterer vanligvis plan medlemmer til å sende disse falske påstander og deretter dele inntektene. Gjenoppretting av tapte penger kan være vanskelig, men mange av disse tilfellene bosette seg ut av retten gjennom hvile ordninger at planen administratorer gjenopprette noen av midlene tapt.
"The cost of paying tax should be considered an additional financial expense, and the administrative burden of filing those taxes should be considered an additional labour 'expense'. Simplified, your question is asking how to determine whether these additional expenses are 'worth' it. There are many ways to calculate what your time is 'worth'. Consider two situations where you may consider picking up additional part time work at minimum wage: 1)  If you are working 80 hours a week at a stressful but high-paying job, working another 5 hours a week at minimum wage would likely not be worth your time [both because you already make 'a lot' of money, and also because your time is limited and therefore precious].  2) If you are working 20 hours a week at minimum wage, then another 5 hours a week at the same job would likely be worth your time [both because it would increase your income by 25%, and also because it would not put a heavy strain on your light schedule].  These two extreme examples highlight the inferred principle that I think generally applies to weigh such decisions: Competes with: In your specific example, the actual 'work' component will happen regardless of the money aspect. That is, your wife will be providing these services regardless. So your question is essentially ""would it be worth it for my wife to make $5k, given that she would pay tax on that money and would bear the burden of administrating the tax filings etc.?""  We can't answer this directly, because it relates to what your wife values. If doing this would make the activity (which is otherwise just a hobby) an unwanted chore, then it may not be worth the post-tax income. If doing this would not impact her enjoyment of the teaching, but would add on an unwanted ~1 hour / week of paperwork, is it worth spending 50 hours over the course of the year, to earn $5k? I assume the answer then would be ""yes""."
It includes food and me pitching into utilities. I have priced it out and it would be fairly similar, I could save a bit if I didn't have the same diet as my family. Overall though I can't find much else that is largely better for my current income unfortunately.