3 ms·
Many interesting points here, but the most striking to me is how this is yet another industry that is socializing their costs by paying employees so little that
by xaa 10y ago
Many interesting points here, but the most striking to me is how this is yet another industry that is socializing their costs by paying employees so little that they have to get food stamps, hiring people part-time so you don't have to pay benefits, etc. I guess you sort of expect that from Wal-Mart, but a university?
It is true that supply exceeds demand for PhDs, especially in humanities, and prospective PhDs should be aware of this, but I can't really see any excuse for this behavior by universities. It's bad for the taxpayer, bad for the employee, and bad for the students. Only one it's good for is the administrator, who can pocket a bonus for cutting costs. The government shouldn't stand for this, IMO. I think this would be a good way to frame an argument for a minimum wage in such a way it would appeal to a conservative. "Businesses: you must pay employees enough so they aren't eligible for (most forms of) public assistance."
As the link points out, faculty are complicit too by taking on unsustainable numbers of grad students out of pure self-interest.
- humanrebar 10y ago> I think this would be a good way to frame an argument for a minimum wage in such a way it would appeal to a conservative. "Businesses: you must pay employees enough so they aren't eligible for (most forms of) public assistance." Is it better to not pay them at all? If the problem is that people can't afford their bills, the solution is to help them afford their bills (minimum income, negative income tax, cash welfare, etc.), not to distort labor markets. We need to make sure that there is modest marginal cost to employment or else people will have limited ability to retrain or otherwise break into new labor markets.
- VLM 10y agoYes its better not to pay them at all because it sends a strong economic signal of "go do something else you're not wanted here". Far better they get a new career and become net sources of tax money rather than net sinks. At the macro level you have a totally different problem if there's 320 million people and only 90 million jobs, well... There is no logical reason retraining or breaking into a market naturally requires receipt of food stamps. If there were a healthy demand, pay would be healthy.
- humanrebar 10y agoThere is healthy demand for lower risk employees. It's a big ask for an employer to sink $50k into an unknown employee. If we want people to make bets on the inexperienced and untrained, we need to lower the stakes. $40k/year is a big bet. Telling people to just find another industry is well and good, but what industry will pay a 55 year old underemployed person full salary and benefits just in case they're a tragically misunderstood diamond in the rough. And this is a real problem. The employment rate is in the basement. There are structural issues that need addressed.
- elihu 10y agoPerhaps schools should lose their tax-exempt non-profit status if they over-pay their administrators or over-spend on administration versus education or if they pay their employees so little that their use of assistance programs is a burden to other taxpayers?
- maverick_iceman 10y agoAs a libertarian I would rather see these social services getting abolished rather than putting more burdens on businesses.
- mark_edward 10y agoYou mean you'd rather see people go hungry
- gumby 10y agoExcellent, a right wing argument for UBI! (I wish I were being sarcastic, but I am sad to say I am not) [Edit: I don't mean to say you are a right-winger -- I have no idea if you are or not -- simply that you have nailed an excellent point that could be used to support the implementation of UBI: jobs that are socially valuable, but only marginally so].