Talented people would or should be willing to work for low pay:
It is operable in my sentence you quoted—the market doesn’t require him to offer 0.5mil. He can probably have his pick of 99% of people with the needed skills for half that. His target market would work for that.
But I don’t know that I’d call that low pay. Low, by what standard? You’ve mixed a moral justification (should) with a predictive justification (would) and a judgment (low pay).
I’m pointing out:
There is a difference between value and price.
You seem to be asserting that there is some mystery to solve—if they claim to value people so much, why don’t they pay that price. I’m saying that’s no mystery—people don’t pay according to value, they pay according to the best price they can get.
But 5 is also operable.
There are pay constraints associated with funded research grants. They can’t pay 0.5mil. The funding agent just wouldn’t put up with it, nor would his research org. Like middle management everywhere, the research director is bound by constraints from others; he isn’t the theoretical market agent maximizing his own preferences with his own dollars, he’s maximizing his preferences within the constraints of his research organization and his funding organization.
If indeed it were the case that biomedical research isn’t facing a talent-constraint, i.e., they’re able to get as many people as they want with these awesome qualifications, then I would agree with you.
But the impression I got is that they aren’t able to find “enough” such people (at the low prices they currently offer). Which raises the question of whether there simply don’t exist more such people at the margin (that was my explanation 1) or that even if they did find more people, every such person would be willing to work for low pay.
(5) seems more convincing to me, and your elaboration of it makes sense.
It is operable in my sentence you quoted—the market doesn’t require him to offer 0.5mil. He can probably have his pick of 99% of people with the needed skills for half that. His target market would work for that.
But I don’t know that I’d call that low pay. Low, by what standard? You’ve mixed a moral justification (should) with a predictive justification (would) and a judgment (low pay).
I’m pointing out:
You seem to be asserting that there is some mystery to solve—if they claim to value people so much, why don’t they pay that price. I’m saying that’s no mystery—people don’t pay according to value, they pay according to the best price they can get.
But 5 is also operable.
There are pay constraints associated with funded research grants. They can’t pay 0.5mil. The funding agent just wouldn’t put up with it, nor would his research org. Like middle management everywhere, the research director is bound by constraints from others; he isn’t the theoretical market agent maximizing his own preferences with his own dollars, he’s maximizing his preferences within the constraints of his research organization and his funding organization.
Thanks for the clarification.
If indeed it were the case that biomedical research isn’t facing a talent-constraint, i.e., they’re able to get as many people as they want with these awesome qualifications, then I would agree with you.
But the impression I got is that they aren’t able to find “enough” such people (at the low prices they currently offer). Which raises the question of whether there simply don’t exist more such people at the margin (that was my explanation 1) or that even if they did find more people, every such person would be willing to work for low pay.
(5) seems more convincing to me, and your elaboration of it makes sense.