I believe that a job is worth what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept? Why? Because if no one accepted a job because the pay was too low then the offerer would have to pay more. It doesn't matter if the pay is not enough to LIVE ON. That is not the responsibility of the offerer. Let's not make the offerer (employer) the bad guy here. Some people can't stand the fact that Sports Figures and Entertainers make mega bucks for what they do. Sure they deserve it, after all, someone is willing to pay them those big bucks and they are willing to accept. Don't pay the big ticket prices to see these Sports and Entertainment Figures and watch their income drop big time. Also don't buy the products that these figures endorse.
What do you think a job is worth?
What is a Job Worth?
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
What is a Job Worth?
I don't buy certain products, because of celebrity endorsements. My mother got mad because I wouldn't go to the movies with her, I didn't like the actress and what she stood for. Best way to show your disapproval, don't contribute in any way to them.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What is a Job Worth?
By Co-Incidence, my husband was complaining only today that Fabio Capello was not worth the 6 Million we pay him every year. This made me think that pay Is related to success In the way we view payments.
Had Fabio Indeed led England to a World Cup Victory, No-one would question his 6 million but because he failed to do that, many now ask, Is he worth the money?
And also by Co-Incidence we have been discussing today how our friends are going to ride the Increase In VAT without raising prices which will lead to customers complaining. This Is a very good example of how narrow minded some folk are when we see successful people. Our friend Is expected to be open virtually 24 hours a day even at 2 am when the drunks fall out of the club wanting fast food, yet when they see he has a new car, they resent him for It.
Had Fabio Indeed led England to a World Cup Victory, No-one would question his 6 million but because he failed to do that, many now ask, Is he worth the money?
And also by Co-Incidence we have been discussing today how our friends are going to ride the Increase In VAT without raising prices which will lead to customers complaining. This Is a very good example of how narrow minded some folk are when we see successful people. Our friend Is expected to be open virtually 24 hours a day even at 2 am when the drunks fall out of the club wanting fast food, yet when they see he has a new car, they resent him for It.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What is a Job Worth?
Lon;1327618 wrote: I believe that a job is worth what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept? Why? Because if no one accepted a job because the pay was too low then the offerer would have to pay more. It doesn't matter if the pay is not enough to LIVE ON. That is not the responsibility of the offerer. Let's not make the offerer (employer) the bad guy here. Some people can't stand the fact that Sports Figures and Entertainers make mega bucks for what they do. Sure they deserve it, after all, someone is willing to pay them those big bucks and they are willing to accept. Don't pay the big ticket prices to see these Sports and Entertainment Figures and watch their income drop big time. Also don't buy the products that these figures endorse.
What do you think a job is worth?
So, let me get this clear, if a job offerer is taking advantage of people's circumstances to offer wages below what is required to live on and make himself a vast fortune would you would consider it perfectly legitimate for the workforce to unite and demand higher wages? What if that employer is prepared to use intimidation and if necassary force and to break such a workers organisation and refused to pay hogher wages would you consider him within his rights to do so?
Some jobs are clearly worth more than others, Doctors, nurses and the like get paid for what they know not just their time do you think it right they get treated. We pay musicians because what they do not many can emulate and they have the ability to make us all appreciate what they do. Sportsmen are worth little unless they can win and peiople want to emulate their expertise, they need the hype to make money. it's a fickle business. Personally I don't think any footballer is worth what they pay them but I don't watch football anyway.
What do you think a job is worth?
So, let me get this clear, if a job offerer is taking advantage of people's circumstances to offer wages below what is required to live on and make himself a vast fortune would you would consider it perfectly legitimate for the workforce to unite and demand higher wages? What if that employer is prepared to use intimidation and if necassary force and to break such a workers organisation and refused to pay hogher wages would you consider him within his rights to do so?
Some jobs are clearly worth more than others, Doctors, nurses and the like get paid for what they know not just their time do you think it right they get treated. We pay musicians because what they do not many can emulate and they have the ability to make us all appreciate what they do. Sportsmen are worth little unless they can win and peiople want to emulate their expertise, they need the hype to make money. it's a fickle business. Personally I don't think any footballer is worth what they pay them but I don't watch football anyway.
What is a Job Worth?
gmc;1327658 wrote: So, let me get this clear, if a job offerer is taking advantage of people's circumstances to offer wages below what is required to live on and make himself a vast fortune would you would consider it perfectly legitimate for the workforce to unite and demand higher wages? What if that employer is prepared to use intimidation and if necassary force and to break such a workers organisation and refused to pay hogher wages would you consider him within his rights to do so?
Some jobs are clearly worth more than others, Doctors, nurses and the like get paid for what they know not just their time do you think it right they get treated. We pay musicians because what they do not many can emulate and they have the ability to make us all appreciate what they do. Sportsmen are worth little unless they can win and peiople want to emulate their expertise, they need the hype to make money. it's a fickle business. Personally I don't think any footballer is worth what they pay them but I don't watch football anyway.
I don't believe that employers make a conscience effort to pay people below a livable wage or even have any idea of what a livable wage is. Livable wages vary from household to household and person to person.The employers main concern is making a profit, and what's wrong with that? Wages and benefits are just one of the many factors that have to be factored in (and a heavy one).
Yes, employees have every right to organise as long as they organise in a peaceful way. The employer has no right to use illegal intimidation or force against employees and should be prosecuted if he does.
A World Class Athlete in New Zealand will never make as much money as his American counterpart because of TV, game attendance, price of tickets, size of viewing audience, endorsements. This is why top athletes jump to another country where the TV viewing and game attendance audience is larger as well as ticket prices being higher.
Some jobs are clearly worth more than others, Doctors, nurses and the like get paid for what they know not just their time do you think it right they get treated. We pay musicians because what they do not many can emulate and they have the ability to make us all appreciate what they do. Sportsmen are worth little unless they can win and peiople want to emulate their expertise, they need the hype to make money. it's a fickle business. Personally I don't think any footballer is worth what they pay them but I don't watch football anyway.
I don't believe that employers make a conscience effort to pay people below a livable wage or even have any idea of what a livable wage is. Livable wages vary from household to household and person to person.The employers main concern is making a profit, and what's wrong with that? Wages and benefits are just one of the many factors that have to be factored in (and a heavy one).
Yes, employees have every right to organise as long as they organise in a peaceful way. The employer has no right to use illegal intimidation or force against employees and should be prosecuted if he does.
A World Class Athlete in New Zealand will never make as much money as his American counterpart because of TV, game attendance, price of tickets, size of viewing audience, endorsements. This is why top athletes jump to another country where the TV viewing and game attendance audience is larger as well as ticket prices being higher.
What is a Job Worth?
Lon;1327618 wrote: I believe that a job is worth what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept? Why? Because if no one accepted a job because the pay was too low then the offerer would have to pay more. It doesn't matter if the pay is not enough to LIVE ON. That is not the responsibility of the offerer. Let's not make the offerer (employer) the bad guy here. Some people can't stand the fact that Sports Figures and Entertainers make mega bucks for what they do. Sure they deserve it, after all, someone is willing to pay them those big bucks and they are willing to accept. Don't pay the big ticket prices to see these Sports and Entertainment Figures and watch their income drop big time. Also don't buy the products that these figures endorse.
What do you think a job is worth?I agree with the fact that what people choose to do and pay for is entirely their responsibility but our definition of ownership will probably always be different considering I'm a socialist.
First thing's first, the context in which you use "offerer" suggests "ownership" from which you're either ignoring the laws that prevents others from retaining some of that "ownership" or you agree that people should be oppressed and forced to work as slaves for those "offerers" while they retain an army to back them up in forcing citizens to work for the amount of money they choose to give them ending in abysmal health, both mental and physical, at the same time no real opportunity to rise above poverty knowing those that retain said "ownership" has the key to inflation. At the end of it roughly 2% of the countries' population hits the loop button and sits back getting fat
Luxury is worth what people pay, not necessities that are controlled by less than 5% of the people because they have laws in place to prove that Earths resources belong to them because mommy and daddy's ancestors were lucky enough to reap the benefits from blood and gore
What do you think a job is worth?I agree with the fact that what people choose to do and pay for is entirely their responsibility but our definition of ownership will probably always be different considering I'm a socialist.
First thing's first, the context in which you use "offerer" suggests "ownership" from which you're either ignoring the laws that prevents others from retaining some of that "ownership" or you agree that people should be oppressed and forced to work as slaves for those "offerers" while they retain an army to back them up in forcing citizens to work for the amount of money they choose to give them ending in abysmal health, both mental and physical, at the same time no real opportunity to rise above poverty knowing those that retain said "ownership" has the key to inflation. At the end of it roughly 2% of the countries' population hits the loop button and sits back getting fat
Luxury is worth what people pay, not necessities that are controlled by less than 5% of the people because they have laws in place to prove that Earths resources belong to them because mommy and daddy's ancestors were lucky enough to reap the benefits from blood and gore
What is a Job Worth?
posted by lon
I don't believe that employers make a conscience effort to pay people below a livable wage or even have any idea of what a livable wage is. Livable wages vary from household to household and person to person.The employers main concern is making a profit, and what's wrong with that? Wages and benefits are just one of the many factors that have to be factored in (and a heavy one).
Yes, employees have every right to organise as long as they organise in a peaceful way. The employer has no right to use illegal intimidation or force against employees and should be prosecuted if he does.
What about a moral, if not a legal responsibility to care about the communities in which they are based? Employers are shown themselves quite capable of not only exploiting those who work for them but also destroying the surroundings for those who have to live next to the chemical factories, coal mines etc etc. The idea that employers will behave in an ethical and fair fashion without being forced is not one that is carried out very often in practice.
I don't believe that employers make a conscience effort to pay people below a livable wage or even have any idea of what a livable wage is. Livable wages vary from household to household and person to person.The employers main concern is making a profit, and what's wrong with that? Wages and benefits are just one of the many factors that have to be factored in (and a heavy one).
Yes, employees have every right to organise as long as they organise in a peaceful way. The employer has no right to use illegal intimidation or force against employees and should be prosecuted if he does.
What about a moral, if not a legal responsibility to care about the communities in which they are based? Employers are shown themselves quite capable of not only exploiting those who work for them but also destroying the surroundings for those who have to live next to the chemical factories, coal mines etc etc. The idea that employers will behave in an ethical and fair fashion without being forced is not one that is carried out very often in practice.
What is a Job Worth?
If businesses are to survive and make a profit in a free economy, they have to keep their costs down. Where businesses are companies or funded by shareholders, bank loans, etc., they have a responsibility to those people to maximise their profits by keeping their costs down. Labour is seen as a cost in this perspective. It also drives mechanisation and technological innovation in the attempt to reduce the need for labour. The process is not about ethnics but economics.
In this type of economy, those with the most money will always have the upper hand and will be able to call the shots within the economical contraints of the market.
If the labour provider, who is in competition with the next provider for jobs, wants to have any more say over the money, they need form to united bodies such as unions.
We do have a right to work, but we have to compete with the next person for the position. So, if one person will do a job for £X and another with the same required skills is willing to do it for £X-1, then the latter will get the job.
In this type of economy, those with the most money will always have the upper hand and will be able to call the shots within the economical contraints of the market.
If the labour provider, who is in competition with the next provider for jobs, wants to have any more say over the money, they need form to united bodies such as unions.
We do have a right to work, but we have to compete with the next person for the position. So, if one person will do a job for £X and another with the same required skills is willing to do it for £X-1, then the latter will get the job.
What is a Job Worth?
Lon;1327618 wrote: I believe that a job is worth what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept? Why? Because if no one accepted a job because the pay was too low then the offerer would have to pay more. It doesn't matter if the pay is not enough to LIVE ON. That is not the responsibility of the offerer. Let's not make the offerer (employer) the bad guy here. Some people can't stand the fact that Sports Figures and Entertainers make mega bucks for what they do. Sure they deserve it, after all, someone is willing to pay them those big bucks and they are willing to accept. Don't pay the big ticket prices to see these Sports and Entertainment Figures and watch their income drop big time. Also don't buy the products that these figures endorse.
What do you think a job is worth?
A fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The trouble with the attitude you express is that it leads to oppression. Where a small group of people gain control over the means of production they can control the wage structure and ensure that the workers are forever on the edge of, or in, debt and can never escape the poverty trap.
The wages paid to the workers should reflect the value they add to the product and should, effectively, be a reasonable percentage of the profit on the enterprise.
A hundred years ago some British factory owners were still operating "Tommy Shops" where the workers were paid in "Tommy notes" only redeemable in the factory stores - nominal value of the note, one shilling, value of the goods it would buy, sixpence. The workers lived in company houses so if they lost their job they were homeless and no other factory owner would take them on because they were "troublemakers". Under these conditions the workers could never progress to become anything more than slaves and the employer was very much the "bad guy".
What do you think a job is worth?
A fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The trouble with the attitude you express is that it leads to oppression. Where a small group of people gain control over the means of production they can control the wage structure and ensure that the workers are forever on the edge of, or in, debt and can never escape the poverty trap.
The wages paid to the workers should reflect the value they add to the product and should, effectively, be a reasonable percentage of the profit on the enterprise.
A hundred years ago some British factory owners were still operating "Tommy Shops" where the workers were paid in "Tommy notes" only redeemable in the factory stores - nominal value of the note, one shilling, value of the goods it would buy, sixpence. The workers lived in company houses so if they lost their job they were homeless and no other factory owner would take them on because they were "troublemakers". Under these conditions the workers could never progress to become anything more than slaves and the employer was very much the "bad guy".
What is a Job Worth?
K.Snyder;1327759 wrote: I agree with the fact that what people choose to do and pay for is entirely their responsibility but our definition of ownership will probably always be different considering I'm a socialist.
First thing's first, the context in which you use "offerer" suggests "ownership" from which you're either ignoring the laws that prevents others from retaining some of that "ownership" or you agree that people should be oppressed and forced to work as slaves for those "offerers" while they retain an army to back them up in forcing citizens to work for the amount of money they choose to give them ending in abysmal health, both mental and physical, at the same time no real opportunity to rise above poverty knowing those that retain said "ownership" has the key to inflation. At the end of it roughly 2% of the countries' population hits the loop button and sits back getting fat
Luxury is worth what people pay, not necessities that are controlled by less than 5% of the people because they have laws in place to prove that Earths resources belong to them because mommy and daddy's ancestors were lucky enough to reap the benefits from blood and gore
I have read your post 5 times and find it to confusing to respond to. I guess no response is required.
First thing's first, the context in which you use "offerer" suggests "ownership" from which you're either ignoring the laws that prevents others from retaining some of that "ownership" or you agree that people should be oppressed and forced to work as slaves for those "offerers" while they retain an army to back them up in forcing citizens to work for the amount of money they choose to give them ending in abysmal health, both mental and physical, at the same time no real opportunity to rise above poverty knowing those that retain said "ownership" has the key to inflation. At the end of it roughly 2% of the countries' population hits the loop button and sits back getting fat
Luxury is worth what people pay, not necessities that are controlled by less than 5% of the people because they have laws in place to prove that Earths resources belong to them because mommy and daddy's ancestors were lucky enough to reap the benefits from blood and gore
I have read your post 5 times and find it to confusing to respond to. I guess no response is required.
What is a Job Worth?
Bryn Mawr;1327877 wrote: A fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
The trouble with the attitude you express is that it leads to oppression. Where a small group of people gain control over the means of production they can control the wage structure and ensure that the workers are forever on the edge of, or in, debt and can never escape the poverty trap.
The wages paid to the workers should reflect the value they add to the product and should, effectively, be a reasonable percentage of the profit on the enterprise.
A hundred years ago some British factory owners were still operating "Tommy Shops" where the workers were paid in "Tommy notes" only redeemable in the factory stores - nominal value of the note, one shilling, value of the goods it would buy, sixpence. The workers lived in company houses so if they lost their job they were homeless and no other factory owner would take them on because they were "troublemakers". Under these conditions the workers could never progress to become anything more than slaves and the employer was very much the "bad guy".
What is a fair day's pay?
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
The trouble with the attitude you express is that it leads to oppression. Where a small group of people gain control over the means of production they can control the wage structure and ensure that the workers are forever on the edge of, or in, debt and can never escape the poverty trap.
The wages paid to the workers should reflect the value they add to the product and should, effectively, be a reasonable percentage of the profit on the enterprise.
A hundred years ago some British factory owners were still operating "Tommy Shops" where the workers were paid in "Tommy notes" only redeemable in the factory stores - nominal value of the note, one shilling, value of the goods it would buy, sixpence. The workers lived in company houses so if they lost their job they were homeless and no other factory owner would take them on because they were "troublemakers". Under these conditions the workers could never progress to become anything more than slaves and the employer was very much the "bad guy".
What is a fair day's pay?
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
What is a Job Worth?
Lon;1327893 wrote: What is a fair day's pay?
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
Are you sure about that?
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
Bet you all share equally in the national debt though. All the liability and none of the benefits.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
Are you sure about that?
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
Bet you all share equally in the national debt though. All the liability and none of the benefits.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
What is a Job Worth?
gmc;1327901 wrote: Are you sure about that?
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Bet you all share equally in the national debt though. All the liability and none of the benefits.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
Your listed stats don't tell the whole story. There are 23,762,864 businesses in the U.S. Some Sole Ownership, some Partnerships and of course the dreaded and evil money grubbing Corporations. All of these business entities hire people, some more than others. It's easy to think of the biggies like Ford Motor C., Alcoa Aluminium, Shell Oil etc. but in fact, smaller businesses hire more people. These smaller businesses don't control anything and for the most part are run by people that were former employees. The DEPENDENCY that some have on their unions to represent their interests does nothing more than perpetuate DEPENDENCY and diminish their feeling of independence and self sufficiency. While not all will prosper under our economic system (despite it's warts), at least there is the opportunity to move up big time economically speaking. Legions of present day employers have done so. Not all is inherited and perpetuated wealth like the Dupont's.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Bet you all share equally in the national debt though. All the liability and none of the benefits.
United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
Your listed stats don't tell the whole story. There are 23,762,864 businesses in the U.S. Some Sole Ownership, some Partnerships and of course the dreaded and evil money grubbing Corporations. All of these business entities hire people, some more than others. It's easy to think of the biggies like Ford Motor C., Alcoa Aluminium, Shell Oil etc. but in fact, smaller businesses hire more people. These smaller businesses don't control anything and for the most part are run by people that were former employees. The DEPENDENCY that some have on their unions to represent their interests does nothing more than perpetuate DEPENDENCY and diminish their feeling of independence and self sufficiency. While not all will prosper under our economic system (despite it's warts), at least there is the opportunity to move up big time economically speaking. Legions of present day employers have done so. Not all is inherited and perpetuated wealth like the Dupont's.
What is a Job Worth?
Lon;1327893 wrote: What is a fair day's pay?
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
If an employer pays, say, $100,000 to set up a factory with the equipment required to manufacture a product. He pays $5 per unit for the raw materials and pays the employees $5 per week for their labour in which time each employee makes one unit. Let's add to that $5 per unit for sales and $5 for delivery and we have a cost per unit of $20.
If the employer sells each unit for $100 and has 100 employees then he is taking $8,000 per week in profit and will cover his set-up costs in three months.
Then you are comparing the employers income of $8,000 to the enployees $5 - explotation. This is exaactly the sort of figures and differentials that were engendered in the times controled by the rules you are now espousing.
We might not be living a hundred years ago but, if you remove the checks and balances that have been put into place in those hundred years then we might as well be - your scenario is a move back to the bad old times.
The value add of any process within the manufacturing cycle can be calculated and the same techniques can be applied to service industries.
To give more specific answers to you unanswerable questions, when profit becomes much more than 50% of turnover you have to look at sustainability - someone is being ripped off.
When the employers take home becomes much more than ten times that of the average employee then you need to start justifying the differential.
A fair day's pay is one where the employee can live and the employer can make a profit - if a business cannot achieve both then it is not viable.
How is the value that employee's add to a product determined?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit that employee's are entitled to?
What is a reasonable percentage of profit for business? Should that profit be different from one business to another?
We are not 100 years ago and there is not a small clique controlling the means of production.
If an employer pays, say, $100,000 to set up a factory with the equipment required to manufacture a product. He pays $5 per unit for the raw materials and pays the employees $5 per week for their labour in which time each employee makes one unit. Let's add to that $5 per unit for sales and $5 for delivery and we have a cost per unit of $20.
If the employer sells each unit for $100 and has 100 employees then he is taking $8,000 per week in profit and will cover his set-up costs in three months.
Then you are comparing the employers income of $8,000 to the enployees $5 - explotation. This is exaactly the sort of figures and differentials that were engendered in the times controled by the rules you are now espousing.
We might not be living a hundred years ago but, if you remove the checks and balances that have been put into place in those hundred years then we might as well be - your scenario is a move back to the bad old times.
The value add of any process within the manufacturing cycle can be calculated and the same techniques can be applied to service industries.
To give more specific answers to you unanswerable questions, when profit becomes much more than 50% of turnover you have to look at sustainability - someone is being ripped off.
When the employers take home becomes much more than ten times that of the average employee then you need to start justifying the differential.
A fair day's pay is one where the employee can live and the employer can make a profit - if a business cannot achieve both then it is not viable.
What is a Job Worth?
Someone with a 140 IQ performing a job that requires a 140 IQ works no harder than someone with a 100 IQ performing a 100 IQ task. They both expel the same amount of energy and both should be paid the same because of it. This increases innovation by allowing people to choose what their profession is. This then later defines what the luxuries are in society much in the same as what's defined as luxury within country's who as a result have different cultures. Meaning, quintessentially, that people with a country as wealthy as the US sees sports such as American football in which quite alot of money is available to buy the thousands upon thousands of equipment used to play the sport whereas most everyone else only needs a round ball and not even a goal(Which a trash can laying horizontal to the ground would suffice if one wishes to get creative) to enjoy an activity we all collectively call a "sport". Same sport, different interpretation.
We have the best Universities in the world and innovation no doubt is a primary result of that but it's not because all of our students are American. Not by any stretch of the imagination. When papers are published the Universities are quick to highlight the persons completing them are on their payroll.
We wouldn't dare give most of the profits from agriculture to a mere Earthworm so why should we give most of the profits to people in tacky suits and a comb over? It doesn't add up and the Earthworm will soon save the day...or we're all finished!
We have the best Universities in the world and innovation no doubt is a primary result of that but it's not because all of our students are American. Not by any stretch of the imagination. When papers are published the Universities are quick to highlight the persons completing them are on their payroll.
We wouldn't dare give most of the profits from agriculture to a mere Earthworm so why should we give most of the profits to people in tacky suits and a comb over? It doesn't add up and the Earthworm will soon save the day...or we're all finished!