you don't need to bring up trump in a camera thread

It's an apt comparison, though ;)

the people with the highest compensation packages are by definition the least replaceable

That's not exactly true.

High compensation can be offset by the risk a position entails.

Example: CISOs are feeling a lot of pressure these days

> Definitely under appreciated and under paid, but I learned a ton about working for a living.

a lot of the discussion about wages ignores the value of experience; students pay to spend their days learning but it's somehow unfair for someone to get paid to learn job skills that transfer to other jobs

Experience doesn't put food on the table today.

neither does education, what's your point?

> extreme form of coffee hipsterism

I know a lot of coffee nerds and cold brew is disdained for not extracting enough flavors. This is just someone who never adapted to the world hoping the world will adapt to them.

> Papers don't establish ground truths in science > it doesn't shake the foundations of science

the comment doesn't say any of that, just that resources are wasted participating to these "conversations"

> I went to MIT, and to this day I wonder how much checking "Hispanic" helped me there and if I "deserved" to go.

the problem with aa is not about people getting in that didn't "deserve" it, it's people getting in who don't have the means to succeed; elite colleges brag about their diverse admissions but don't talk about people who go on to fail when they could've succeeded at less prestigious schools

if you succeeded then you deserved to get in.

If MIT rejected applicants with better profiles because of the URM checkbox, in some sense they didn't deserve to get in.

I'm technically 1/4 Hispanic, but not at all Hispanic in any real sense. I forgot to check the box when applying to top schools. My odds would've had a large boost just for claiming an identity that's had no relevance to any area of my life. I'd call that "undeserved."

> if MIT rejected applicants with better profiles because of the URM checkbox, in some sense they didn't deserve to get in

"better" is subjective and imo anyone who goes on to succeed at the school is as good as the next person; there are lots of other equally arbitrary decisions that go into college admissions

then you know it's not a great article.

I know you are not critically engaging with it.

You know how you think the world should work and you reject evidence in front of you. You do not liok for counter-evidence, or find faults in the evidence presented - you just reject it outright, like how flat earther rejects physics

> My personal, uneducated, unverified hypothesis was that companies overcompensate price increases for three main reasons:

profit-maximizing sellers can only increase prices if demand rises, otherwise they will sell fewer units at the higher price (and if they could've made more money selling fewer units at a higher price then we can assume that they were already doing that because they are profit maximizing)

the only way that demand can rise (allowing prices to rise) in unison is if there is more money going around, which is what happens when the money printer goes brr, which it did https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

Your theory is assuming I'm using more toilet paper than usual, or that my budget for toilet paper has increased in the past 2 years, which is just patently ridiculous.

No, this is not a joke. I wipe the same as pre 2020. I had a couple of pay raises since then, but I still buy the same amount of TP, and the price is still 50% higher than before.

you can flag it