ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
2d ago
Surely there should be some limit where we decide that a CEO is just too expensive, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism in corporate America to limit it.
Who's "we"? What does this "we" have to do with it? What would it mean for this "we" to "decide"?
I can certainly think of mechanisms in corporate America by which individuals can "decide" that they think a company is wasting money on a CEO and take actions based on that decision. If enough of them do, then I guess maybe one could call that group a "we", and the results can range from simply insulating that "we" from any negative consequences to providing a signal to directly causing a change.
ControlsFreak
3d ago
Sure, it is not absurd to have a perfectly inelastic supply curve, in theory. Presumably, you'd still have a downward-sloping demand curve and an equilibrium price, yes? Or are you wanting to posit a perfectly inelastic demand curve, too? Honestly, I wouldn't know what to say other than, "Wow, such theory," because yes, I'm pretty sure it is trending toward absurd to think that either of these is actually the reality in the low-pay labor market... and it gets more and more absurd to think that both are the reality.
Which brings me back to... anyone got any evidence that this theoretical edge case is actually the case in reality?
ControlsFreak
4d ago
if the supply curve is very flat, behavior that looks like that can happen. Suppose there are 10000 people willing to do a job from any price from $10/hr to $100/hr.
A very flat supply curve would, by convention, be nearly perfectly elastic, with the value of elasticity very close to infinity. In contrast, what you go on to describe is a perfectly inelastic supply, with the value of elasticity very close to zero.
This is in pretty sharp contrast to actual measurements of the elasticity of labor supply, which are more like 0.7-1.8. Do you have any sort of empirical support for this claim of (I believe) perfectly inelastic supply (as opposed to your description of the supply curve, which would be perfectly elastic)?
Maybe I'll put off dealing with the demand side until we see if we can make some progress on the supply side. TBH, I've got a bad feeling about this one.
ControlsFreak
4d ago
there is no market clearing price for first world citizens doing a variety of shitty jobs- you can reallocate the limited supply by offering more money, but you cannot get them fully staffed.
This is, frankly, absurd. It must misunderstand both components, supply and demand. How is this supposed to work? Does demand for such workers not slope downward? (I would think that as the price of such labor increases, the quantity demanded would go down, as the price of the ultimate products would have to go up, reducing the consumer demand, in turn.) Does supply for such workers not slope upward? How would this work? Are you somehow going to entice fewer workers to take those jobs by offering $X+1 instead of $X?
ControlsFreak
9d ago
Double-edge razor, brush/soap; cheap stuff (found a brand of blades I like and bought a hundred pack; no fancy scents). I used to do it very regularly, but the wife likes a beard, so now I just do my neck less often. I follow the standard with-the-grain/across-the-grain/against-the-grain pattern for three passes. I almost never cut myself anymore since I got the hang of it.
ControlsFreak
11d ago
It is, potentially, a massive amount of money
Potentially, perhaps. Like I mentioned, when I tried following the cites, it often was sort of piddly amounts of money.
The Democratic administrations did, in fact, get the banks (and many tech companies) willing to bend over backwards out of fear of costly not!fines which would sent to activist groups that hated them and would have the backing to bring other costly lawsuits. I wouldn't call it fixing, since I don't have the same goals as the but the banks drastically revamp their behaviors for more than a decade, even through the first Trump admin, both on who they allowed to have accounts and who they didn't.
Sure, but this has approximately zero to do with the these sorts of settlements, particularly, and more to do with the threat of lawsuits/regulatory action generally.
Your own proposal of requiring administrators to affirm things isn't even coherent within that framework, but it's also a joke given that these orgs were long supposed to already be affirming it
Where? When? How? At what point did they have to sign their name on the dotted line, with known penalties through known mechanisms, stating that they weren't doing those things?
and were more likely to get in trouble for fucking with an antivirus setting than for putting out Whites Need Not Apply signs.
Funny you say that, because my understanding was that there were clear regulations and universities had to (across the board) sign their names on the dotted lines affirming that they had satisfied certain cybersecurity requirements. Thus, the getting in trouble for it.
There are several extant lawsuits focusing on unlawful DoE discrimination against disfavoured minorities, university discrimination against disfavoured minorities, of widespread fraudy behaviors by colleges and their research components, and that's before the widespread tolerance or outright advocacy of political discrimination or violence. Many of these orgs running those lawsuits have a lot of focus on these problems; many of these lawsuits are focused on the very specific issues that impact the ability of academic institutions to perform in their claimed roles.
That's all perfectly fine. Kinda has nothing to do with these specific types of settlements. It's a complimentary strategy, yes. But it's clear that the admin is struggling with one-offs here and there. Thus, looking for a comprehensive, across-the-board way to use known hooks and known mechanisms to change behaviors.
Most importantly, none of this is "indiscriminate chemotherapy". We're soooooo far past that silly reasoning, which was my original point. Yes, you can use hooks in the federal funding process (across the board, with known mechanisms). Yes, you can use targeted lawsuits. Sure, I guess you can try to have some of those lawsuits produce (bad, partisan) payouts to your favored NGOs. None of those things are silly "indiscriminate chemotherapy".
ControlsFreak
11d ago
Thanks for a cite to the type of settlement; that's valuable information.
But it's still a powerful tool, and one that's very hard to undo.
I guess where I'm at is that all this is fine. You and @WhiningCoil have identified a way to get money, and it is hard to undo that getting of money. But I guess I view it as that the following is the plan:
- Get Money (and give it to your preferred NGOs or whatever)
- ???
- Problem solved!
There doesn't seem to be anything special about this form of getting money as opposed to any other form of getting money (except that it's bad and the left did it, so it's a chance to get in a partisan dig). I'm not sure why I couldn't just swap some other form of getting money into this plan and conclude that it will solve the problem in the same way. I guess it's because you're deciding that you're going to get that money from the universities when you sue them? Uhhh, so how does that help? Is that what was demonstrated to work in the past? Did prior Democratic administrations actually fix something about the banks or whoever they sued when they got money from them? If not, then ??? If so, then my sense is that it would probably have been something about the thing that they actually sued about and other terms of the settlement that involved them changing some behavior (rather than just giving money) that actually 'fixed' them. And those things are totally missing from this plan.
This (bad, partisan) way of getting money may be doable and hard to undo, but it seems to not even have a passing familiarity with solving any of the actual problems we set out to solve. We were talking about ways to fix universities, the concern came up that future administrations might undo something, then we sort of jumped randomly to "this is a thing that's hard to undo!". I mean, we could have jumped to me eating a hamburger. It's hard to undo me eating a hamburger. But's it's not terribly relevant to the conversation in any other way, either.
ControlsFreak
11d ago
I don't understand how you say this doesn't work. It obviously has worked in the recent past!
Sorry, how has it obviously worked to reduce the ability to use the federal government as a weapon against universities? How has this strategy obviously worked to actually fix something at universities? I'm not following.
ControlsFreak
11d ago
Thank you for providing something, though that link is a trainwreck in terms of having basically no real information to go off of. Thankfully, Cato and FedSoc have significantly better articles, with at least some traceable cites to see some real info. Still not super great. Near impossible to follow the cites to actual numbers, and when you do find actual numbers, they're pretty piddly.
Nevertheless, there shouldn't have been a single dollar done that way. Trump should have supported a statutory ban, and those settlements should have been thrown out on Constitutional grounds, as well. Frankly, if Trump started doing it, I would say that they should be thrown out on Constitutional grounds, too.
In my defense, your original comment went through quite the journey, talking about fabricating criminal conspiracies and just general government spending. I see that you're now focused solely on being upset about one specific thing that was done by Obama/Biden and want to use that specific thing.
Now, some thoughts. The context for all this was (your comment and mine):
Yes, but enforcement actions will likely cross from one administration into the next, in which case a friendly administration will just drop it. We've seen this repeatedly. All deeply embedded Democratic partisans need to do is run the clock out until one of their guys gets back in power, and then all is forgiven and things can ratchet another degree.
If that's your worry, then I'm all ears for your plan on how to reduce the ability to use the federal government as a weapon for partisan purposes against universities. Or, well, anything else for that matter. This isn't even a university problem. It's a "government is sometimes held by my opponents" problem.
This strategy doesn't do anything to reduce the ability to the use the federal government as a weapon against universities. It doesn't do anything to actually fix anything with universities, AFAICT. ISTM that the purpose of the goal is purely extractive, as you viewed prior acts as extractive. You certainly haven't given a way that it should be done that is oriented toward fixing anything instead of being primarily extractive. As I wrote, there's nothing specific about universities. No reason why they should be the target for extractive suits rather than anyone else (except, I guess, you don't like them). Not really any grounds on which to go after them that could produce settlements that could conceivably be funneled to Elon. But whatever. Finally, it does nothing to alleviate your concern that the government is sometimes held by your opponents. In fact, as I responded, I think some on the right are worried about the risk of never-ending reprisals and descent into further banana republic, rather than actually contributing to a solution. But fair enough on your preferences. Perhaps you have a concept of a plan, but it clashes with your originally-stated goals, and it still has significant work to get to something real.
One final note is that connection to being able to continue suing is weak. Yes, money is fungible, but it was particularly ill-motivated in the original comment. Like, the thing that Elon lacks for being able to sue a future government is money? Lol wut? It sure sounded like there was something legal going on, rather than just money. Honestly, left wing NGOs probably get significantly more money through regular appropriations (and bullshit appropriations when they were, indeed, shoveling money out the front door during COVID/IRA/whatever). It took me a bit to realize that you were mostly just pissed about one terrible thing they did, didn't really have any specifics of how it could work the other way, didn't really have any sense of how it could actually fix the problems identified, didn't really have the qualities that one would naturally expect from a reading of your comment, and also worked against your originally-stated goal. Yeah, I was kinda dumb for not figuring it out for a while.
ControlsFreak
11d ago
I spelled out how exactly you were missing anything approaching a plan, specifically for universities.
I mean, I guess there's a sentence about somehow getting settlement money from them to Elon, but not a single sense of what that sort of thing might actually look like. How the mechanics of it could work. I'm not even looking for a complete strategy, but some sort of something that a person can squint at and say, "Ah yes, I can mayyyybe imagine how that might work." Call it, say, "concepts of a plan".
Indeed, you did not have that. You literally had:
Let Trump's DA start suing universities left and right, and structure the settlements so that they have to give some Elon headed NGO all the money, so he can sue them some more long after Trump is out of office.
That's it. That's all you had. We can just read your comment and see that that's all that you had. How is that supposed to work? Give me an example, an idea, a process, an anything. You claim my ignorance is "tactical". I claim my ignorance is just ignorance. I honestly have no idea how this is supposed to work. I mean, can I just sue you right now in a way that lets my neighbor sue you some more in case I die next year? Just all out of magic or something?
ControlsFreak
11d ago
Oh hey, if only I had an entire comment responding to that, which you seem to not have engaged with.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
Definitely not. It's entirely internal reflection, and it hadn't even crossed my mind to actually mention it until I saw someone else say it.
FWIW, I've enjoyed our interactions (and your comments, generally), as well.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
I'm starting to outgrow this place
I've been thinking on this exact thing for a little while now. That there may be others having the same thoughts at the same time perhaps leans me more toward thinking that the quality has just gone down. Only slightly, though; there's always just coincidence.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
this method
is undefined, so one cannot determine how generally scoped your claim is. My comment was very clearly making a scope argument (about your own argument), so this is just non-responsive.
Alternatively, the most natural of the charitable interpretations is that you agree with my scope claim and acknowledge that your own proposal suffers at least the same defects.
Slightly less charitably, you're just doubling down on misdirection and obfuscation. Bad faith argumentation stuff.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
To the extent it is a problem, (1) is a problem for any scheme of enforcement. (2) is another form of a "government is sometimes held by my opponents" problem.
But you're distracting from the real question, of course. It appears that even the Trump administration is coming around to the idea that it's best to go after specific things, where they are strong, and enforce them broadly, using the hook of federal funding and existing mechanisms. As I suggested months ago. Not indiscriminate chemo for no purpose, no rhyme or reason, just blasting randomly. It's not like blasting randomly is going to solve these concerns you're now bringing up. It's just silly misdirection.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
I slightly worry that if and when we do get one of those folks, it's not going to be good for me. Not because I think it's going to be someone who you think is in your image. It's probably not going to be that either. But it will likely be the forever boot in the face that @The_Nybbler is always concerned about.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
Slight correction: You've never seen it before. Some of us have.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
Fair enough as a description of your preferences. I think the right, in general, is debating to what extent to engage in a similar strategy, due to the risk of never-ending reprisals and descent into further banana republic (which I think folks who are somewhat aligned with you in this question would say the country already was). Nevertheless, there's nearly nothing in here about universities. I mean, I guess there's a sentence about somehow getting settlement money from them to Elon, but not a single sense of what that sort of thing might actually look like. How the mechanics of it could work. I'm not even looking for a complete strategy, but some sort of something that a person can squint at and say, "Ah yes, I can mayyyybe imagine how that might work." Call it, say, "concepts of a plan".
ControlsFreak
12d ago
If that's your worry, then I'm all ears for your plan on how to reduce the ability to use the federal government as a weapon for partisan purposes against universities. Or, well, anything else for that matter. This isn't even a university problem. It's a "government is sometimes held by my opponents" problem.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
Lying in applications for federal funding comes with significant institutional and personal penalties. That machinery is already in place.
ControlsFreak
12d ago
Continued Evolution on "The Plan" to Deal with Universities
WaPo cites two anonymous "White House officials", one of which is described as a "senior White House official". They claim that the purpose of anonymity is "because [the plan] is still being developed". So obviously, take that for what it is. Plausibly just a trial balloon to see how it plays; plausibly just a push by one faction within the WH to change direction.
“Now it’s time to effect change nationwide, not on a one-off basis,” said a senior White House official
At least somebody at the WH is observing that doing things like indiscriminate chemotherapy wasn't working, and now little targeted things might be struggling, too.
The new system, described by two White House officials, would represent a shift away from the unprecedented wave of investigations and punishments being delivered to individual schools and toward an effort to bring large swaths of colleges into compliance with Trump priorities all at once.
Universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit rather than racial or ethnic background or other factors, that specific factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.
Huh. I wonder who suggested this sort of thing eight months ago. Of course, that person was also showered in downvotes for continuing to suggest something like this over "indiscriminate chemotherapy".
This was pretty straightforward all along. The playbook was already there. The hooks were already there. There are ways to affect change that are actually oriented toward the goals you want to accomplish. It seems like at least some people in the administration are continuing to find their way to it.
Of course, the wild response is wild:
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said the outlines of the proposal amounted to an “assault … on institutional autonomy, on ideological diversity, on freedom of expression and academic freedom.”
“Suddenly, to get a grant, you need to not demonstrate merit, but ideological fealty to a particular set of political viewpoints. That’s not merit,” he said. “I can’t imagine a university in America that would be supportive of this.”
Spoken as if universities weren't asked for ideological fealty to the left in the past. Some academics basically just tried to stay silent on the matter, while others jumped all over it.
A slightly less insane response:
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley’s law school, said “no one will object” if the White House simply requires universities to pledge compliance with existing law.
But Chemerinsky, one of the attorneys representing UC researchers in a lawsuit challenging terminated federal research funding, also said the administration’s view of what the law requires could be at odds with other interpretations: “It all depends on what the conditions are, and whether those conditions are constitutional.”
Chemerinsky said it would be a First Amendment violation to put schools at a disadvantage in competing for funding if they profess a belief in diversity, for example, because government is not allowed to discriminate based on viewpoint. He said it “would be very troubling” if the White House proposal deviates from the standards that have been used in awarding grants based on the quality and importance of the science, peer review and merit, and uses ideology as the judgment standard instead.
Still sort of lacking, as there was previously a (more-or-less, depending) soft disadvantage in competing for funding if one didn't profess a belief in diversity. If you want me to take this complaint seriously, then you should also say that the left having done that before was wrong. You should say so publicly and publicly commit to a position that the previous regime was, indeed, subject to the exact same concern that they were discriminating based on viewpoint.
But indeed, the Trump admin is in a legally privileged position here. They can, indeed, just demand that universities comply with existing law. I think Prof. Chemerinsky is being a bit coy about whether some universities will complain; my sense is that UCal has already been on a tighter leash for some of these things than many other unis... and yes, even just actually complying with the actual law is going to be a fight for some of them.
ControlsFreak
13d ago
God's chosen representative on Earth, Constantine the Great
Almost good satire, but just a tad too obviously ridiculous here.
ControlsFreak
13d ago
I ask it a few questions that are closely related to my research. When it inevitably is not very helpful, I go back to not caring which one I use for the trivial stuff in life.
ControlsFreak
16d ago
Truth is the central problem with your comments, though. It's not a minor problem that can be routed around.
This seems like something that "we" the stockholders can do. There are stockholder votes. Moreover, if "we" the stockholders "decide that a CEO is just too expensive", then "we" the stockholders can sell (or even short) the stock. No need to be organized about it, either. It's more likely that you just find yourself in a situation where many other stockholders disagree with you, and so you are not, in fact, a "we" that has "decided". You just "decided" on your own and want to imagine that you have a "we". You might even be upset at the fact that you don't have a "we", and so come up with things like....
And here is the rub that I figured you were getting at. What does the general population of voters have to do with it? Should the general population vote to "decide" that some company's investments in AI are "just too expensive"? How about the bill they pay for janitorial services? "Just too expensive". Or anything else? Why should it be across the board? A CEO could be massively "just too expensive" for Starbucks, but downright cheap for another company. You'll probably screw up both cases with a naive law like this.
More options
Context Copy link