there are distributional impacts from crowding out and potential long term effects on AS, never to mention that the inflation risks are very real… debt is likely already politically constraining the fed right now
You're upgrading from a crisis that impoverishes a bunch of people to ... a crisis that impoverishes everyone. Unclear what the improvement was. And potentially literally how you get Hitlers running the government, inflation is one of those effects that breeds political instability.
You said we - possibly there is a flaw in my grammer. How should I be referring to this "we"? Isn't the "I" to "We" transform applied to "you" still "you"? I thought "you" could be plural for groups.
I don't think going from "we" to "they" would be appropriate although in hindsight it might have been a better choice.
I'm not a fan of many of the practices you complain about here, but I will say this: We get paid too little for what we do for way too long....6 years of grad school (24k/yr) 6 year post-doc (42k/yr) in California, when I was in those positions anyway. Today, at UC Davis, assistant professors in the UC system start at $90,700 [1, for salary scale], which is often around 12 years after their undergraduate degree. That's in California, where a mortgage costs you $3,000 a month, minimum.
Why do employees keep voluntarily accepting that type of abuse? Low wages aren't a secret and the employees doing that work aren't idiots so they must know what they're getting into. Are they doing it out of some sort of moral duty, or as immigrants seeking permanent resident status, or is there some other reason? Presumably if people stopped accepting those wages then the wages would have to rise.
Those numbers aren’t accurate anymore they’re out of date and now much higher. Also, I voluntarily pay my students and postdocs 2-3x those numbers currently.
But ultimately (1) those are seen as training positions that lead to a tenured faculty position, which pays fairly well, and has a lot of job security and freedom; (2) certain granting agencies limit what you can spend on students and postdocs, to levels that are too low for HCOL areas.
I'll add in that it's a buyer's market. There are plenty of post docs with no work (who want to work in the academic space) so if you don't want the post there are plenty in line who do.
There's no post-doc-research union to set and enforce reasonable pay scales, but equally a union would have difficulty adjusting rates to local cost of living.
Put another way - supply and demand baby, supply and demand.
Says $60,000 for University of Arkansas or 2/3rd of what was listed for California.
I'm not an academic nor do I live in California (or Arkansas) but $90,000/year after 6 years working below minimum wage and 6 years barely above doesn't sound that great in <economic terms>. Hopefully people are getting benefits from teaching or research.
Except that is where the majority of research is done, where the prestigious schools and students are, and where those people want to live. Plenty of good research gets done in Arkansas, and Texas, and North Carolina, but not in the cheap parts. It happens in Research Triangle, or Austin, or Fayetteville. It doesn't happen at Oachita Baptist College in Arkadelphia.
The somewhat good news is that people get into science and medicine because they believe in them, and they're often willing to work for peanuts so that big pharma can take their work and charge Medicare $80k/yr for a new drug that might work.
There's huge problems in academia and it's incentive structure, but I don't think they're related to be being in urban vs rural America (they exist just as badly in Europe, China, and India)
It's a very small world for various reasons and sometimes, there's a good combination between a PI and a hosting institution. Sometimes there's not. If the guy who's doing what you want to do has his lab at UAB, you go to UAB. That being said, once you get your K23 or R01, because of NIH matching funds, you have more of a choice of where you go.
Those places you list have gone up painfully in a relative sense (like everywhere lately) but are nothing like the absurdity of California. You don't need two highly-paid professional incomes to afford a house with a long commute. There's also Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, central Florida, many others.
Looking at some random assistant professors in relevant departments, I see:
One who earns $113K
Another who earns $94K
Another who earns $96K.
These are regular departments, (biochemistry, biology, etc). Not medical departments. I'm sure those ones get paid more (e.g. one I personally knew in Houston got $180K in a public university in Dallas).
So mid $90's would be my guess.
Then note that these are 9 month salaries, and the typical deal is they get up to a third more from grants (their "summer" salary). So total compensation for assistant professors would be about $120K.
Faculty salaries are not that bad, as a rule. What's really bad is the number of years they spend trying to get a postdoc.
for biomedical, it is what your grant stipulates. I.e. I think way back when, K23's paid $98k for 75% time (or maybe 70%) and your institution agreed to pay the rest. Sometimes, they would actually pay you more to try and get close to fair market value, but that is if the department is generous. For famous institutions, like UCLA, or Brigham and Women's, the law of supply and demand is not on your side bc if you don't like the low salary, there's a giant line of wannabes waiting to take your spot.
Published historical pay will be 12 month salaries. Most non tenured professors will refuse the optional summer salary and work all summer for free, because they have to pay for it from their own grants- it means hiring one less student, and less chance of getting tenure.
Fairly certain. It's also in line with salaries I know from other departments. This is the "fixed" amount of the salary. The grant portion is variable, and also not paid by the state, so it's usually not required by the law to disclose.
That one state is where the apex of the system is. It's where a lot of, maybe most, research happens, it's where perhaps most tech development happens, it's even where a lot of our popular culture is determined. It's where ~everyone is aiming for, even if only a fraction of them will make it there, so it affects the whole system.
All that given, most people still live on the East coast, as in 80% past Nevada. Culture is arguable.
For Americans, there is a clear difference between what behavior might be normal in the bay area/silicon valley all the way to LA than it is for NY, Boston, Houston, Miami, Detroit, etc.
I'd even assert "most tech development" is just plain wrong. It's certainly where many companies are HQ'd, but those same companies have offices all over the states, and each one offers/specializes in different products.
It also depends on what you mean by "tech development" of course. R&D projects and new developments, maybe there's an edge. I have a much stronger feeling that more research is performed in the Boston -> DC metropolis than the equivalent (as in distance) metropolis spanning from LA -> Silicon Valley.
I was contextualizing my response because cost of living is higher in California, and some of those numbers may seem more reasonable if it were in Arkansas, for example.
Gender diversity encompasses the range of differences between an individual's
internal, subjective experience of their gender identity and the sex assigned to them at birth. In gender diverse individuals, shifts in neurobiology are frequently observed, shifts that are frequently towards patterns typical of the other binary assigned sex.
> Gender diversity encompasses the range of differences between an individual's internal, subjective experience of their gender identity and the sex assigned to them at birth.
That's a) not a biological definition, and b) circular because now you still need to define "gender identity".
> In gender diverse individuals, shifts in neurobiology are frequently observed, shifts that are frequently towards patterns typical of the other binary assigned sex.
No, this is a misconception based on flawed fMRI studies that did not control for sexual orientation, did not control for HRT, and did not control for body perceptual disorders. There is no known physical test that can assign or distinguish gender as there is for sex.
Yes, the top-line number doesn't tell you much. Additional details matter: Was it one department or endemic? It appears mostly related to one large Sherrif department:
"""The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) sheriff’s department’s 6,789 abuses made up a majority of the record 7,275 violations across California that were reported to the state Department of Justice (CADOJ) in 2023 regarding the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). """
Does misuse of the databases lead to tangible consequences? Maybe yes: "Across California between 2019 and 2023, there have been:
""
761 investigations of CLETS misuse, resulting in findings of at least 7,635 individual violations of the system’s rules
55 officer suspensions, 50 resignations, and 42 firings related to CLETS misuse
six misdemeanor convictions and one felony conviction related to CLETS misuse
""
I have not read the paper...just reacting to the headline. As a neuroimager I can tell you that having more or less "brain activity" does not tell us much. There are plenty of instances where reduced activity is indicative of more efficient processing or different cognitive strategies.
reply