4 ms·

Eric Weinstein on the matter - https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/1222303201073909760?s=21 https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/122230320107390976..

• Proven 7y ago
  Spot on
• refurb 7y ago
  Underpay? Top researchers at places like Harvard do very well from what I understand, especially if they consult on the side or sit on boards. We’re talking several hundred thousand. That’s not enough?
  • kube-system 7y ago
    "several hundred thousand" per year is a less than the $750,000 that China was willing to pay according to the article.
    • refurb 7y ago
      So the argument is we should pay professors at least as much as the China are willing to bribe them with?
      • kube-system 7y ago
        You’d have to ask the original author for clarification on what their argument is. My interpretation of the argument is that labor markets are heavily driven by economic incentive. I can’t say I’ve seen much data to the contrary.
  • cat199 7y ago
    the comment says 'underpay ... relative to say Investment Bankers, VCs or mgmt consultants.' the point as I see it is that if scientists are of strategic importance, they should be compensated accordingly to prevent the risk of bribery/defection - the same reason companies justify high pay to these other jobs to 'retain their talent'.
    • chasd00 7y ago
      isn't it well known that you make less money in academia than in business? The trade off is job security. I'm sure he could go lead a lab at Exxon for millions but the moment he doesn't deliver he's fired.
• supernova87a 7y ago
  Charlie Lieber is the head of the fucking Harvard Chemistry department. He's not lacking in prestige or pay, I guarantee you that.