Ah yes, those evil professors, non-profit employees, and pharma employees -- providing their professional services for a modest wage. If professors are respons

Ah yes, those evil professors, non-profit employees, and pharma employees -- providing their professional services for a modest wage. If professors are responsible for ballooning higher ed costs then why have their numbers decreased (replaced by ad juncts) and their pay remained flat? How, exactly, are they siphoning off that money? Because it sure as hell isn't coming from their salaries or job prospects. Consider for example CS professors, who make only 1/3rd of what they would make in the private sector. Blaming non-profit employees for breakdowns in for-profit employment is just confusing. How, exactly, is this mechanism supposed to work? I suppose you blame nurses for ballooning healthcare costs? And in your mind, who isn't rent seeking? Are landlords and other real estate owners rent seekers? What about owners of valuable real estate (real or virtual) who sell ad space? What about owners of stocks and bonds who don't actually work in those companies or contribute to those communities? Or only the teachers and pharma researchers and non-profit employees? To be frank, it's hard for me to take a rant about rent seeking seriously when it complains by name about teachers and pharma scientists -- people who do actual labor -- but not about literal rent seekers such as people who own large amounts of stock or real estate.