vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I've had this problem (but not this bad), so this is what worked for me:  1)Remove all of your saved credit card information from any shopping site. Convenience is a huge enabler.   2)Physically track your spending on non-essentials. Keep a little journal of it. I found that actually writing it out and the total made me take note of it more.  3) I joined a saving/investing app that I contribute towards a Roth IRA and a savings account. Sometimes when that ""extra"" money in my checking account is burning a hole in my pocket, I'll contribute that extra money. It still feels nice and it's going towards good things.   4) Develop a hobby that doesn't overly tax your wallet. This might go towards making you feel better and thus make you less prone to retail therapy.  As for getting yourself out of credit card debt, can you sell off the meaningless material things you've been buying and put that money to paying down your debt?"
"Im currently working on the line for a major multinational. They regularly take feedback from us for improvements, and in India, one of those suggestions increased direct sales by (reportedly) over 50%. That suggestion? Put a label on card readers that said ""(company name) Authorized Card Reader"". It cost the company less than $10, and now brings in millions per year."
Not playing victim, just stating that when the cards are so stacked against you and when all jobs available to you are not paying a living wage so you have to work several jobs to just make ends meet, you have limited control over what you can do with your time to then improve the situation.  And sure people can overcome, but why let it be so difficult to do so?
Yeah this is what I thought too. The article referencing 'The Big Short' is kind of just fear mongering, the crisis was horrible and the movie did well to reflect that but the entire crux of the story was that credit ratings agencies weren't transparent and the market was being rigged. If regulation is good then there's no reason CDOs are a problem.
"They may be downvoting you because you come across as an abrasive, self-important prick - however this may be an act as it seems you have a huge inferiority complex, as shown by your desperation to prove yourself to a bunch of strangers on a website.  We get it: you are an ""outstanding candidate,"" you work harder than anyone else, your wife is the best wife, everyone else is lazy and stupid.  You are a valuable person.  Now you can STFU."
What really gets me is that the whores at the credit rating agencies aren't penalising this. These high grades are ridiculous, especially as they are used as anchors for political risk premium calculations. The European debt crisis gave everyone a step by step playbook on risk transfer channels, and yet [here](https://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png) we are...
Fair, but headlines like these do tend to stroke reactions from many of panic because of words like subprime and loans. Doesn't help that places like WSJ plant it right on their front page as the featured article lol.
It gives some vague crap about pain, but talks very little about the actual diagnoses, chronic pain is one of those things that seems subjective, but can be very problematic for determining ability. A construction worker with chronic back pain might in theory be able to do a desk job, but if hes an older worker, especially only a high school graduate, he's gonna have a fuck time trying to get a desk job, and is likely unable to meet the standards required for retail, and you can not be just a cashier, all cashiers are now stock/clerk/cashier with lifting minimums and requirements to stand for 4 to 5 hours at a time. In THEORY theres a job he could be doing, in ACTUALITY there isn't. Times of high unemployment create more and more situations like that as people who found some acceptable niche to fit in that accommodated their disability now find it extremely difficult to find that accommodation again. Lacking other options, it now becomes a necessity to get into SSDI since the US has pretty much no real reliable welfare. An SSDI requires you not work, so you can't wean off of it, its a trap, once you're in, you usually don't get out. It's the biggest, most extreme welfare cliff in the way it's designed.
Bravo to A.O's analysis, even with it's resentful tone.... I did not have any help from my parents and still can't afford a luxury car. I have two college degrees, raised three children, and have always worked at least a 40 hour work week. The only reason I can give is not wanting it badly enough... It all boils down to what each of us wants out of life and our perspective. If your perspective is to compete with others in appearances, you will end up empty. However, if you want a quality, enriched life, there is nothing wrong with what you drive. It all boils down to how you feel about what you drive....
Yes, it's a gross over-simplification, we can certainly agree on that.  You don't need a degree to make a good living (defined as 50k+ work for you?). This is a popular lie that was fed to young people, which aided in creating this student loan crisis in the first place. Truck drivers, construction workers, skilled laborers in general, etc make good money. Right put of HS, of course it can be difficult to land one of these jobs, but working as say, a dock worker for $10-12 for a few years and working your way up to a higher-paying job is a fantastic route to take- in this case that would likely be a truck driver (this requires some school and a license, but every semi-major company will pay for that if you've been working for them for a few years and they can trust you). The issue that is far too prevalent is that kids either aren't getting a reasonable education or they aren't graduating from HS- topics for another day probably.   School costs have gone up because the govt was garunteeijg a loan to everyone with a pulse.   I'm with you on education. Public education is an abject failure. We have failed to educate our youth and minimum wage laws price those poorly educated, unskilled youths right out of the job market. I'll leave the rest of the third paragraph alone as I think we differ in fundamental values that neither of us are likely to change and a discussion of those values would be exausting.
"I used prosper.com about 4-5 years ago and all my loans have paid off since.  I stopped using it because it was difficult to find people who were not fools.  The last straw was a profile that went something like this: ""NEED $5k TO GET OUT OF DEBT"" and then listed Cable TV as a $130/mo expense along with a bunch of other frivolous stuff.    Perhaps it has improved since?"
Certainly the author was well prepared, what with his Art History degree and all, to work at a major investment bank. I think the point of the article is that luck *can be* considerably more important than preparedness.
Well following your train of thought, if someone used the Visa/Amex/MC gift cards to buy something at another store, couldn't Visa/Amex/MC go to those stores and ask for evidence of who used the cards and then go after those people?  The rabbit hole could go pretty deep, but if the amount was large enough they might be motivated to at least make examples of some people to discourage this in the future.
You would be surprised. I work in a grocery store where poor customers use a food stamps card to buy their groceries but pull out a debit card for a $60 carton of cigarettes and a $20 case of beer. They use the money they should be using for food on other things because they get an EBT card.
"There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions.  The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them.   I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them.  The article below does state that Mastercard does have a ""stop recurring payment"" flag.  Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice.   Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers"
"Others have commented on the various studies. If, as JoeTaxpayer says, this one particular study he mentions does not really exist, there are plenty of others. (And in that case: Did someone blatantly lie to prove a bogus point? Or did someone just get the name of the organization that did the study wrong, like it was really somebody called ""B&D"", they read it as ""D&B"" because they'd heard of Dun & Bradstreet but not of whoever B&D is. Of course if they got the organization wrong maybe they got important details of the study wrong. Whatever.) But let me add one logical point that I think is irrefutable: If you always buy with cash, there is no way that you can spend more than you have. When you run out of cash, you have no choice but to stop spending. But when you buy with a credit card, you can easily spend more than you have money in the bank to pay. Even if it is true that most credit card users are responsible, there will always be some who are not, and credit cards make it easy to get in trouble. I speak from experience. I once learned that my wife had run up $20,000 in credit card debt without my knowledge. When she divorced me, I got stuck with the credit card debt. To this day I have no idea what she spent the money on. And I've known several people over the years who have gone bankrupt with credit card debt. Even if you're responsible, it's easy to lose track with credit cards. If you use cash, when you take out your wallet to buy something you can quickly see whether there's a lot of money left or not so much. With credit, you can forget that you made the big purchase. More likely, you can fail to add up the modest purchases. It's easy to say, ""Oh, that's just $100, I can cover that."" But then there's $100 here and $100 there and it can add up.
This is obviously hearsay because I can't remember the sources at all, but I recall hearing that at that company's chains, they also would take the credit card fee out of the worker's tips. so if you used a card and there's a 2.5% fee, they'd take that amount out of your waiter's tips.  Isn't that nice?  Random citations that make it less hearsay:  http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/09/some_restaurant_owners_say_its.html   http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/10/parasole_restaurants_dipping_into_tip_jar_taking_2_of_wait_staffs_credit_card_tips.php   http://www.tip20.com/restaurant-chain-drops-plan-taking-credit-card-fees-out-of-tips/38  &gt;The tip plan, first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, called for passing along part of the debit and credit card fees — about 3 percent of tips on average. That would have meant a waiter would collect $19.40 out of a $20 tip.  http://www.care2.com/causes/restaurant-chain-takes-banking-fees.html   http://restaurants.about.com/b/2008/01/29/employer-takes-servers-tip-money-to-pay-for-credit-card-fees.htm
Another one to alert consumers:  [RFID Credit Cards Are Easy Prey for Hackers](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/249138/rfid_credit_cards_are_easy_prey_for_hackers_demo_shows.html)  If you have a paypass capable card, then you have a RF chip in it. All it takes is someone to walk around with a RF reader  to pull your credit card info and then use it. ($350 in equipment)
Are you sure about this? I mean your premise. I thought tax was based on shipping address. I've made purchases, live, in NY, and had the choice to pay sales tax or to have the item shipped, in effect paying shipping, for real, instead of sales tax.  It appears that by buying a loaded cash card you'd accomplish your goal. I've seen such cards go fo $1.50, no fees other than that. To save the sales tax, or pay the tax of the state you're in, it may be worth it. But a NH billing address don't solve this, again, I believe tax is based on ship-to.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/10/discretionary-services-spending-has-finally-made-it-back-to-2007.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; One explanation for the slow growth of spending on discretionary services is that households are concerned about their future income.  &gt; So in thinking about the pace of recovery for discretionary services spending, I compare the pace seen in the current expansion with that seen in the three other recent expansions-the 1960s and 1990s expansions, which lasted longer than the current expansion, and the 1980s expansion, which lasted almost as long.  &gt; Much of the gap between the current and previous long expansions occurred early in the expansions: Four years into the current expansion, discretionary services expenditures were only marginally above the level seen at the trough of the business cycle.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77abot/discretionary_services_spending_has_finally_made/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~230886 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*: **expansion**^#1 **services**^#2 **expenditures**^#3 **discretionary**^#4 **growth**^#5"
"(I agree with the answers above; would just like to make a couple of additional points.) It's a good and simple strategy to try it out with a small amount as suggested by @JoeTaxpayer♦. It's also generally safe to assert that card issuers currently don't receive or actively look at itemized transaction details. But that does not mean they cannot in the future. Some stores utilize level 3 data processing, which tells the card issuers exactly what you bought in a transaction. An example of level 3 data being utilized to reject rewards is with Discover, which announced a 10% cashback reward for any transactions made with Apple Pay last year. It later introduced an additional term to exclude gift card purchases. And this has been verified to be effective - no more reward on gift card purchases; clawback of cashback on existing gift card transactions. As far as I know, Amex does receive and look at some level 3 data retrospectively. That does not necessarily mean they will claw back your cashback after initially rewarding the 6%. But it might show up if you ever trigger an account review, and be used as evidence of your ""abuse"" of the program (which BTW is defined rather subjectively). There has been many cases of account shutdowns because of this. Card issuers are also trying to do a better job preventing ""abuses"" by proactively setting caps on rewards (as opposed to closing those accounts afterwards and taking the rewards away altogether). Given the trend in recent years, I have to speculate that at some point the card issuers would put clear language in the terms against gift card purchase and enforce it effectively (if they haven't already). This reward game is constantly changing. It's good while it lasts. Just be prepared and don't get surprised when things go south."
There was one in the economist recently. Issue at end of April, something about relation between minimum wage increases correlated with number of lower rated restaurants on yelp going out of business. It's in the washroom and I'm lazy or I would go get it.   e: Sorry, it was actually very short and general.
My best advice is start much much smaller. If you wanna stick with the brexit topic- what is the effect of brexit on job loss when it comes to the banking sector? Non brexit- when do companies buy back their own stock and is it a good purchase?
We've all seen Reddit do some amazing things. Is there a place that this can be cross-posted to? (I'm new, and using my phone). Somewhere that will get a little more front page attention than r/business    I'm thinking get Florida residents to know about this. Reddit has changed the votes of politicians, changed the minds of large companies (go daddy), and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for pet causes out of sympathy. Surely we can help these folks. How hard can it be to get a small insurance company to lose its reputation and more importantly, a vast majority of its customers.  If you didn't read the whole article, read it. If you're not pissed, I'd be surprised. Let's do it for what's right, for the little guy, for books &gt; insurance companies. Help this family maintain what's theirs.   Upvote, x-post, share, and stop this injustice. Nothing is impossible.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [Amazon And Ebay Opened Pandora's Box Of Chinese Counterfeits And Now Don't Know What To Do](https://www.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/79qykt/amazon_and_ebay_opened_pandoras_box_of_chinese/)  &amp;nbsp;*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
One super-profligate man generates several orders of magnitude less economic activity than if 100,000 families had, say $100,000 each; less than he managed to spend.  100,000 families with that much more money would all be able to eat at restaurants, buy clothes (I don't care how big his, his wives, and his 18 kids closets are; we're talking something like a thousand orders of magnitude here) buy cars, and just generally create a thousand orders of extra economic activity here; their economic activity of buying  would give further jobs to the sellers of all this stuff; which would in turn be able to buy stuff, and an economy recovers.    *edit spelling, grammar
Embrace the web.  Let folks search for info while they're in your store.  make the Salesmen do it.  give your customer all the info they need to pull the trigger and buy the product.  Just say we'll match Amazon or Newegg on this and the sale's a lock.
The procedure entails developing an account in addition to every with the search engines like Google through which local business listing is going to be claimed. This account is dedicated to you personally and used only for the company’s listings. You retain possession of this account, and administration from the accounts could be fully utilized in you at the finish of anything.
"It's not my title. It's the original title. I was pointing out that as a headline, it makes more sense to point out that the businesses are apparently against this regulation. Rather than have the headline be formulated as a tautology, i.e. ""Consumers win after CFPB opens door to thing that benefits consumers""."
"Reminds me of that very old commercial on TV where Abraham Lincoln is sitting in an employment office saying, ""I've done a lot of reading and studying, sort of on my own"".  The HR guy is sloppily eating a sandwich during this and with sandwich bits falling from his mouth he says, ""That's great, but you ain't goin' nowhere without that sheepskin pal."""
"In general we're getting a more nuanced view of a proposition that might tend to influence policy. ""Amazon creates jobs"" is the implicit suggestion of the headline, and it's worthwhile to take a critical approach rather than simply accepting it as something that should influence our opinions.  Letting the mayor open an urea refinery in the centre of town *also* creates jobs, after all, but people tend to have an intuitive grasp of the costs that it would impose on the townsfolk as a whole.  You allude to what I think is a fear of asymmetrically developed information:  having learnt of the disadvantage of a growing Amazon to potential employees, as compared to the preceding status quo, we proceed on the assumption that the growth of Amazon is a sufficient explanation for the disruption of that status quo, and naively assume that we need merely prevent Amazon's business model from succeeding in order to restore the world to rights, without examining any of the possible harms of our own intervention.  That's certainly something I can sympathize with.  However, while 'creative destruction' describes something that does indeed happen, it's a bad idea to observe destruction and assume that either the process or the outcome is necessarily creative.  'Destructive destruction' is *also* a thing, and it is inherently cheaper and easier than the creative variety.  'Disruptive' business models often succeed simply because they use technology to bypass regulatory traps, for good or for ill.  At times, however, this involves the discovery of a way to offload the costs of the enterprise onto society.    A wonderful example of this would be bike-sharing systems.  Where I've seen them in North America, in their first generation, they tend to have physical parking stations to which the bikes must be returned.  In China, by contrast, systems have developed where one needn't even return the bicycles to any particular location;  one merely finds one wherever someone had parked it, and unlocks it by scanning the code on it.  The bicycles themselves are not a huge capital cost, so convenience relies on a huge oversupply of bikes that have been parked, dumped, dropped, or hidden by their previous riders all over the public space.  Effectively, these companies have managed to make the municipal services responsible for their inventory management."
"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk.  The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process):  1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (""a terminal"") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a ""Payment Gateway"".   3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (""Chase"", ""US Bank"", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, ""Can card # 555.. charge $10?"" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor.   5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on.   7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees.  The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on.   8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant.    The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with.    That's what you're paying for."