Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
joe_smith_110515's profile
joe_smith_110515




stats
following: 1
followed tags: 0
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 0
member for: 1339 days
style: normal



comments 0

Hi,

I tried to answer you immediately but I couldn't because of some connectivity issues.

Yes, I do understand Keynesian economics which suggests at the time of boom. However, with Greece, those days are past. However, the key point of the article is that when the countries bailed their banks out, the board and shareholders of those banks saw an increase in the net worth. Even in the cases, where the CEOs have asked to leave, they left with a hefty settlement that is almost unrealizable to most in the middle and lower income level. However, having to come of its own debt, when the Govts., imposed austerity it is poor and middle income families who lost their jobs.

Yes, some were stupid enough to buy into the bubble. But the close nexus between the real-estate barons and the politicians, as well as the opportunistic (unregulated) acts of financial industry is the main reason for those bubble. If austerity is expected to flush inefficient industries out, should it be the banks who should have ceased to exist in the first place? I could even accept austerity, to some extent, had those banks become a national property. Instead of that, cutting the jobs of the poor and middle class, to keep afloat an asset of the rich is nothing but day-light plunder...! Hence, i tend to side with the article...!

I would also like to request you to kindly point out some articles or data sources, where the austerity has actually affected the rich, if possible...! (I mean made them lose a few millions for example..!)

Exactly... That is the reason, the article denounces the boasting of some Jingoistic political elements in India...!

I think you are the best person and you are a proof what the author had given in earlier post (http://theanalyzt.blogspot.ca/2015/06/should-i-study-more.html). The plot in this link would explain all. The best time to start working, to break even is 2 - 3years after high school.

I agree with you and hope I had known this when I was in my high school!

By the way, please don't mistake me when I asked you to post your comments in the blog. I like your discussions very much. I just thought, your comments in the blog would bring some encouragement...

Hope to hear more from you, reg.

Hi, I completely agree with you that the research problem could only be fixed by making our society value research. But that's not the case. I shared one other post, where one postdoc had worked as a forklift. However, the article I believe is not suggesting that research crisis could be fixed by introducing cheap labor. But, it is more of a satirical dig at the Companies and Govt., for encouraging higher education while they are already disinclined to provide them with any livelihood. Govt. wants technology, companies want cheap labor to do quality work... like that. If it is not clear, post your comments on the blog itself....

    I don't think this is the right approach. If we are to fix the research problem, it's not going to be by introducing cheaper labor, I think it's by introducing more capital. Our government and our population needs to value research more.
    Much like agriculture, there's a huge gap between people consuming a product and knowing where it comes from. People think that a steak or a strawberry magically appear on the shelf in a grocery store, they also have the same disconnect with life saving procedures and drugs. This disconnect also extends to everyday technologies, societal and cultural understandings and a whole host of things we take for granted that research has illuminated or made possible.
    I don't think this is the right approach. If we are to fix the research problem, it's not going to be by introducing cheaper labor, I think it's by introducing more capital. Our government and our population needs to value research more.
joe_smith_110515  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Think before you leap...

I would guess the situation applies to everywhere. However, I'm not sure how it is in India and China. I have known people doing their 2nd postdocs or more. Yes, you are right in that it is means to get specialized knowledge. However, while most of the bright students are encouraged to pursue a research career only a few are rewarded. Industries are not keen in hiring a postdoc and as the NATURE article says only 10% are hired for teaching. Govts.' redtape and cuts along with nepotism, corruption and protectionism mean that many postdocs are left out. Ex. India.

So, I think, research career (PhD and Postdoc) may be a very bad idea from an employment perspective... It is a very grim picture

posts and shares 0/0