4 ms·

So long as bright young students continue to ignore market realities and pursue academic careers, nothing will change. In fact, as a taxpayer and student I wou

So long as bright young students continue to ignore market realities and pursue academic careers, nothing will change. In fact, as a taxpayer and student I would be upset if my university unilaterally chose to pay more than the market would bear. So long as highly-educated individuals will accept reaching jobs for $34,000 a year, that is precisely what we should continue to pay them—doing otherwise would be an inefficiency in operations which would drive up the already high cost of education. Unfortunately, even in his follow up he fails to acknowledge that market realities are the cause of his fate: https://medium.com/@AndrewR_Physics/jump-to-conclusions-40446decf18a https://medium.com/@AndrewR_Physics/jump-to-conclusions-4044...

girvo 12y ago
You're missing the point (and are callously insensitive to the plight of another human being, in my honest opinion). He's working full time hours, with more than full time responsibilities, but the University is using technicalities and loopholes to avoid giving him the benefits that we as a society have decided all full time employees should have. I think that sort of behaviour is abhorrent, and frankly anyone who defends that strikes me as a "fuck you, I've got mine" kind of person. I make far more than this person does, and I can make the trade-off to do contract work for higher pay. His trade off is "contract" work for lower pay than the full timers with more than full time work load, and he doesn't get to trade higher job security for lower pay like we do. He's being exploited and has the worst of all worlds, and he's teaching the next generation of this world, and you're sitting here saying he gets what he deserves? You've got to be kidding me.
- morgante 12y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say he's being exploited. He's a highly educated white male in a prosperous nation. He has plenty of agency and has had many options throughout his life. If you read his follow up, he admits that he's explicitly choosing this job for personal reasons (flexible hours allow for him to provide parental care). When there is a long queue of people who would love to take your job, I just don't see how you can call it exploitation. He's not being manipulated; he's just accepting the low pay as a tradeoff for flexible hours. I suppose you could maybe argue that there's a positive externality to his employment which the market doesn't capture (note: this would be separate from the positive externalities of education, which is already subsidized), but I'm skeptical. There's a long queue of people who would love even his marginal academic job. Obviously, I do feel sorry for the guy. I'd never want to be in his situation myself, but I also feel he should admit his own agency in getting himself into it (hopefully helping to tear down the glorification of academic jobs in the meantime). Moreover, most of my sympathy tends to go to people in genuinely exploitive and helpless conditions (ex. children born into poverty; women in tyranical underdeveloped countries, etc.).
ziles88 12y ago
You sound like a first year economics student, everythings still so black&white to you, just stop with the cliche 'market will bare' stuff at least. This theory means less and less these days. Many are realizing it's quite the opposite. In situations where the market wont bare the rich and powerful's offerings, the rich and powerful just go out of their way to force you to bare it... An example, oh well JimmySuperstore's market won't bare price hike, so they'll just make that money up by offshoring and avoiding taxes thereby sticking it to the market anyways.. Another good example, my apartment raises rent 20% in 4 years (illegally) and when caught and fined, just decided to demolition the entrie building so they could gentrify all the people who couldn't 'bare' their prices, and rebuild so they wouldn't be legally required to pay grandfathered rates to past tenants. There is no more such thing as market correction anymore, only displacement. Just a simple look at inflation adjusted year-of-year wages since the 1980's will show you recessions and market corrections disportionately effect the poor, and there is no hope or chance of regression, it's too late now, only a world financial collapse can adjust inequality at this point. Sorry for being so Keynesian, but it's the damn truth.
- morgante 12y ago
  Sorry, but your rambling anti-economics rant doesn't prove anything. I'm sorry for whatever an economist did to you. > JimmySuperstore's market won't bare price hike, so they'll just make that money up by offshoring and avoiding taxes thereby sticking it to the market anyways In an open market, reorganizing operations and increasing tax efficiencies is exactly what Economics 101 would predict. > my apartment raises rent 20% in 4 years (illegally) and when caught and fined, just decided to demolition the entrie building so they could gentrify all the people who couldn't 'bare' their prices, and rebuild so they wouldn't be legally required to pay grandfathered rates to past tenants. Thanks for reminding me of the inefficiencies which non-free markets (rent control) cause. Literally everything in your story is explained by economics 101. > Just a simple look at inflation adjusted year-of-year wages since the 1980's will show you recessions and market corrections disportionately effect the poor Again, economics 101 is fully in accordance with that. Changes happen at the margins, so of course those who are marginally employed (ie. the poor) experience the majority of recessionary setbacks. > a world financial collapse can adjust inequality at this point A world financial collapse would indeed adjust inequality, but only in the sense that we'd all become poor. I hope (but increasingly doubt) that we can reach political compromises before then. > Sorry for being so Keynesian, but it's the damn truth. I'm a Keynesian as well... Keynes didn't reject economics, he just added to it.
kylebrown 12y ago
> doing otherwise would be an inefficiency in operations which would drive up the already high cost of education. The biggest source of inefficiency is the bloated administration. In his most recent article, Accountability in the Ontario Ivory Towers, he does some estimates on how much the teaching budget (which is a tiny few percent of the total budget) would change if lecturers got fair pay.
- morgante 12y ago
  > The biggest source of inefficiency is the bloated administration. I agree that the administration is probably unnecessarily bloated, but it's also important to remember that incentives and economic preferences are also the cause of that.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>In fact, as a taxpayer and student I would be upset if my university unilaterally chose to pay more than the market would bear. Why would you be upset that a public institution decided to behave humanely rather than exploitatively?
- morgante 12y ago
  I don't see anything in the article to suggest this is exploitation (see my response to girvo). He is choosing to work in a low wage job because it offers him flexible hours. I hold public institutions to the same standard of efficiency in accomplishing their goals a private ones (mainly, not paying people extra for no reason). The only difference is that their goals are public, not private.
  - andrewr_physics 12y ago
    The University already has permanent positions (lecturer/instructor) defined in their salary structure. Which are relatively well paid and have the same workload that I do now. But they are pretending that my job is a rolling "temp" position, because it's cheap and they can get away with it. That's the bottom line. And they have to be stopped getting away with it. That's why I wrote the article. And I have overwhelming support from present and former students too.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Paying above market wages doesn't make magic flow to the employee. First, if the market wage is 30K and you pay 50K, that's handing 20K of surplus to the person who assigns jobs. Find that person, kickback 10K to him, get the job. (But we could always fix this with yet-another layer of administration, right?) Second, if someone is paid over market and loses their job, they will be unprepared for the job market.

girvo 12y ago

You're missing the point (and are callously insensitive to the plight of another human being, in my honest opinion). He's working full time hours, with more than full time responsibilities, but the University is using technicalities and loopholes to avoid giving him the benefits that we as a society have decided all full time employees should have. I think that sort of behaviour is abhorrent, and frankly anyone who defends that strikes me as a "fuck you, I've got mine" kind of person. I make far more than this person does, and I can make the trade-off to do contract work for higher pay. His trade off is "contract" work for lower pay than the full timers with more than full time work load, and he doesn't get to trade higher job security for lower pay like we do. He's being exploited and has the worst of all worlds, and he's teaching the next generation of this world, and you're sitting here saying he gets what he deserves? You've got to be kidding me.

morgante 12y ago
I don't think it's fair to say he's being exploited. He's a highly educated white male in a prosperous nation. He has plenty of agency and has had many options throughout his life. If you read his follow up, he admits that he's explicitly choosing this job for personal reasons (flexible hours allow for him to provide parental care). When there is a long queue of people who would love to take your job, I just don't see how you can call it exploitation. He's not being manipulated; he's just accepting the low pay as a tradeoff for flexible hours. I suppose you could maybe argue that there's a positive externality to his employment which the market doesn't capture (note: this would be separate from the positive externalities of education, which is already subsidized), but I'm skeptical. There's a long queue of people who would love even his marginal academic job. Obviously, I do feel sorry for the guy. I'd never want to be in his situation myself, but I also feel he should admit his own agency in getting himself into it (hopefully helping to tear down the glorification of academic jobs in the meantime). Moreover, most of my sympathy tends to go to people in genuinely exploitive and helpless conditions (ex. children born into poverty; women in tyranical underdeveloped countries, etc.).

ziles88 12y ago

You sound like a first year economics student, everythings still so black&white to you, just stop with the cliche 'market will bare' stuff at least. This theory means less and less these days. Many are realizing it's quite the opposite. In situations where the market wont bare the rich and powerful's offerings, the rich and powerful just go out of their way to force you to bare it... An example, oh well JimmySuperstore's market won't bare price hike, so they'll just make that money up by offshoring and avoiding taxes thereby sticking it to the market anyways.. Another good example, my apartment raises rent 20% in 4 years (illegally) and when caught and fined, just decided to demolition the entrie building so they could gentrify all the people who couldn't 'bare' their prices, and rebuild so they wouldn't be legally required to pay grandfathered rates to past tenants. There is no more such thing as market correction anymore, only displacement. Just a simple look at inflation adjusted year-of-year wages since the 1980's will show you recessions and market corrections disportionately effect the poor, and there is no hope or chance of regression, it's too late now, only a world financial collapse can adjust inequality at this point. Sorry for being so Keynesian, but it's the damn truth.

morgante 12y ago
Sorry, but your rambling anti-economics rant doesn't prove anything. I'm sorry for whatever an economist did to you. > JimmySuperstore's market won't bare price hike, so they'll just make that money up by offshoring and avoiding taxes thereby sticking it to the market anyways In an open market, reorganizing operations and increasing tax efficiencies is exactly what Economics 101 would predict. > my apartment raises rent 20% in 4 years (illegally) and when caught and fined, just decided to demolition the entrie building so they could gentrify all the people who couldn't 'bare' their prices, and rebuild so they wouldn't be legally required to pay grandfathered rates to past tenants. Thanks for reminding me of the inefficiencies which non-free markets (rent control) cause. Literally everything in your story is explained by economics 101. > Just a simple look at inflation adjusted year-of-year wages since the 1980's will show you recessions and market corrections disportionately effect the poor Again, economics 101 is fully in accordance with that. Changes happen at the margins, so of course those who are marginally employed (ie. the poor) experience the majority of recessionary setbacks. > a world financial collapse can adjust inequality at this point A world financial collapse would indeed adjust inequality, but only in the sense that we'd all become poor. I hope (but increasingly doubt) that we can reach political compromises before then. > Sorry for being so Keynesian, but it's the damn truth. I'm a Keynesian as well... Keynes didn't reject economics, he just added to it.

kylebrown 12y ago

> doing otherwise would be an inefficiency in operations which would drive up the already high cost of education. The biggest source of inefficiency is the bloated administration. In his most recent article, Accountability in the Ontario Ivory Towers, he does some estimates on how much the teaching budget (which is a tiny few percent of the total budget) would change if lecturers got fair pay.

morgante 12y ago
> The biggest source of inefficiency is the bloated administration. I agree that the administration is probably unnecessarily bloated, but it's also important to remember that incentives and economic preferences are also the cause of that.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>In fact, as a taxpayer and student I would be upset if my university unilaterally chose to pay more than the market would bear. Why would you be upset that a public institution decided to behave humanely rather than exploitatively?

morgante 12y ago
I don't see anything in the article to suggest this is exploitation (see my response to girvo). He is choosing to work in a low wage job because it offers him flexible hours. I hold public institutions to the same standard of efficiency in accomplishing their goals a private ones (mainly, not paying people extra for no reason). The only difference is that their goals are public, not private.
- andrewr_physics 12y ago
  The University already has permanent positions (lecturer/instructor) defined in their salary structure. Which are relatively well paid and have the same workload that I do now. But they are pretending that my job is a rolling "temp" position, because it's cheap and they can get away with it. That's the bottom line. And they have to be stopped getting away with it. That's why I wrote the article. And I have overwhelming support from present and former students too.
danielweber 12y ago
Paying above market wages doesn't make magic flow to the employee. First, if the market wage is 30K and you pay 50K, that's handing 20K of surplus to the person who assigns jobs. Find that person, kickback 10K to him, get the job. (But we could always fix this with yet-another layer of administration, right?) Second, if someone is paid over market and loses their job, they will be unprepared for the job market.