3 ms·
No, it wouldn't. Universities have plenty of money to pay living wages and not abuse their workers. It is a national disgrace that they so often choose to do so
by wfo 11y ago
No, it wouldn't. Universities have plenty of money to pay living wages and not abuse their workers. It is a national disgrace that they so often choose to do so anyway. They just spend their resources on hiring more administrators to assist other administrators in administrating, expensive fancy unnecessary buildings that nobody wants, etc. As it mentions in the article we are discussing. There is more than enough money to go around, it's just going where the people with power decide it should go, as in any hypercapitalist system.
- kedean 11y agoAdditionally, my old university has built 4 new buildings in the last 4 or 5 years that I can think of. Brand new buildings, even while none of the existing buildings are ever actually full. Couldn't this, for example, go to actually teaching? Or maybe some of those donors giving millions to the sports departments could be convinced to give to a teaching fund instead? Perhaps the university doesn't need to spend boatloads switching student management software for the third time in a decade? As the article mentions, the number of students to teachers hasn't changed, it's just that most of those teachers are being paid less. When the universities are making significantly more than they were, the income of the teachers should at least be proportional.
- rhino369 11y agoMy (poorly made) point was that they'd just keep spending and then spend more. If you could make them stop hiring pointless admin and pay adjuncts more, I'd agree.