>Do lenders imagine they're more likely to recover their money this way?
Who knows. But if grad students would act like even half-way decent business men and women then they would pass their costs on to their customer (i.e. their boss).
Just because costs go up doesn't mean your rate of return needs to fall.
I grew up in the Midwest in a suburb of a small city. Looking at census data, it was 95%+ white while I was growing up. The most common profession for the minorities' parents I went to school with seemed to be...physician (mostly Indian, Middle Eastern, Asian).
Minorities were not really looked down on where I grew up, though there was certainly racism around. There were just not many minorities to be racist towards! If you go into the "big" cities in the Midwest it's a different story (I've heard all sorts of racist anecdotes from friends in Chicago and Indianapolis), but out where I grew up it didn't seem to be a thing.
Personally, my parents were much more judgmental of non-Christians (Judaism, Hindu, Islam). Dating people of other skin colors was a non-issue, but when my brother brought home a nice, white Jewish girl my father certainly wasn't pleased.
How is this any different than employers prioritizing hiring from Ivy League schools?
Those schools are mostly made up of upper class kids, who are...mostly white. So then Silicon Valley is just as racist as the Midwest by your own standards, no?
My question for America is, given the current system if every single person was smart and capable enough to be a physician is it possible that no one would live in poverty?
I've been thinking about this question for years and all evidence I can find and understand points to NO, we cannot provide the basic necessities for our population (with our current) even if everyone was an "upstanding member of society."
So, if the system cannot insure that every one is taken care even if every member of the system is highly skilled and capable then the system is WRONG. If we can't take care of an entire population of skilled and contributing members of society, we certainly can't take care of a population where many members are not highly skilled or capable.
You used to be able to discharge student loans through bankruptcy and guess what?? The sky didn't fall down.
However, that was also when a year of college could be paid for by a minimum-wage summer job. Now it's egregiously expensive AND they've got you by the balls.
No, no one in the US is protecting people like them.
Even in this site, most likely will not have much empathy for the people mentioned in the article.
Welcome to America, worship those above you and look down on those below. Then tell yourself you're a good person and go contribute to a company with shaky ethics (at best). Eat, sleep, repeat.
Ah, I get it. The "my leaders should have more integrity than me" mentality. Well guess what? One day you may be a leader...and you'll still have your crap, anti-social mentality.
That's fine, but ultimately how can you look down on people like Trump, Ajit Pai, or the CEO of Comcast? They're sacrificing ethical decisions for money, same as you.
Only difference is they're getting "fuck you" money and you're barely getting enough to buy a house. Kinda lame to sell out for so little IMO.
As long you don't complain about these types of people, then whatever, but if you do you need to take a harder look in the mirror!
LOL. Not unionizing is literally being a bad business-man/woman. Good business-people exploit all legal avenues to maximize their leverage...and if it's not legal, they lobby to make it legal so they can further maximize leverage.
But I suppose it follows, a good business-person is a bad employee. However, I believe with every fiber of my being that employees should follow the examples set by their bosses to be successful. If the boss is doing everything to maximize their leverage over competitors (and their employees - ie pushing for more STEM education to increase supply of workers so they can pay them less), employees MUST follow in the footsteps of their bosses. Not exploiting every avenue for leverage in a system as cut-throat as capitalism only serves to exacerbaate inequality.
Based on those thoughts, I believe unionizing is the patriotic thing to do. I will say though, I would love to see new types of unions emerge that are more efficient than those of yesteryear.
Can you be "the best" if the way you think the company works is at odds with the rest of the company?
Maybe you're just the best at extracting value for yourself but not at creating value for the company. "The best" is super subjective and can mean so many different things.
Becsuse most jobs aren't that hard, sorry. It's just kind of true. Wh I you have 100s of people that could probably do the job competing for a position, that's a great time to be a business owner!
If the state of hiring was negatively impacting companies' bottom lines, they'd do something about it. It's kind of the whole point of companies.
>"I can find interest in a lot of different things and try to put that to work in a positive way, connecting the dots and considering how the pieces fit together..."
I've always felt the same way, I can get excited about sweeping floors if there's a challenge there (how to optimally sweep the floors of a massive factory for example) yet I always have to express how "passionate" I am about some company/service/programming language/etc.
Is this because I typically interview with middle management? For those at the top of the chain, do you still have to BS about your passion? Or can you just be excited to be challenged and make money?
So you're essentially saying, when the poor light your house on fire and you have to listen to your children burn to death. That's when we'll finally say it's enough.
No, because there are many other treatments for pain. The best one is often physical therapy and other repeated physical treatments (especially for back pain), but these are more expensive than a pill!
Additionally, there are other alternatives that people like this billionaire have vested interests in keeping illegal. Such as marijuana, there has been some decent evidence that it can be used to replace opiates as a pain treatment for some people (and has waaaay less side effects).
I don't even work in healthcare, so I imagine there are a ton of options I am overlooking.
Yes, I've been thinking a lot about value the last few months and this is similar to the conclusion I reached. No one is paid based on the value of their output because it is nigh impossible to actually determine for most people!
So we use a proxy for value that is much more closely tied to an employee's leverage in the market place. Does your profession have a government granted monopoly (law/medicine)? Certification to entry? Are you a better negotiator? Do you have another higher job offer? Do you have personal relationships with a business's customers (sales)? All of these things are correlated with increased leverage and thus increased compensation.
Output is largely not. It may set a ceiling for compensation, but it is not as related to compensation as a persons' leverage.
And it follows that people with high amounts of leverage and comparatively low amounts of output will be "screwed" by salary transparency. They will have to justify why their leverage is worth more than someone else's output and that will make them unhappy.
Who knows. But if grad students would act like even half-way decent business men and women then they would pass their costs on to their customer (i.e. their boss).
Just because costs go up doesn't mean your rate of return needs to fall.