[kermittd]

Eric Weinstein on the matter - https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/122230320107390976...

[refurb]

Underpay? Top researchers at places like Harvard do very well from what I understand, especially if they consult on the side or sit on boards.

We’re talking several hundred thousand.

That’s not enough?

[cat199]

the comment says 'underpay ... relative to say Investment Bankers, VCs or mgmt consultants.'

the point as I see it is that if scientists are of strategic importance, they should be compensated accordingly to prevent the risk of bribery/defection - the same reason companies justify high pay to these other jobs to 'retain their talent'.

[chasd00]

isn't it well known that you make less money in academia than in business? The trade off is job security.

I'm sure he could go lead a lab at Exxon for millions but the moment he doesn't deliver he's fired.

[kube-system]

"several hundred thousand" per year is a less than the $750,000 that China was willing to pay according to the article.

[refurb]

So the argument is we should pay professors at least as much as the China are willing to bribe them with?

[kube-system]

You’d have to ask the original author for clarification on what their argument is.

My interpretation of the argument is that labor markets are heavily driven by economic incentive. I can’t say I’ve seen much data to the contrary.

[supernova87a]

Charlie Lieber is the head of the fucking Harvard Chemistry department. He's not lacking in prestige or pay, I guarantee you that.