March 19th, 2011, 9:06 am
I think that profuse volume of 3rd world immigration and exponential growth of H1b quotas killed the scientific star, not materialism. Scientists don't make comparatively less money than they did in the 60s merely because would be scientists have chosen more lucrative endeavors. That would make scientists less plentiful, and better compensated. I'm sure this will have alerted the PC clergy...QuoteOriginally posted by: ArthurDentQuoteOriginally posted by: MulberrySometimes I read on the board about people that "found a love" for finance halfway through their phd in some engineering discipline. I chuckle a little as it may not be love that brings you to finance but might be something else ...Finance is the only area of intellectual work today that pays better than the average policeman's pay. Thirty years back, a scientist or a computer programmer could hope to have a lifestyle similar to doctors, lawyers and executives. Today the same scientific professions pay about as much as firemen, police and the like. Why would you not want to do technical work in finance, however mundane, than slave away in another industry or academia pursuing objectives that society does not appreciate anymore?The West's greatest decade was the 60's when they landed men on the moon. It's been a long downhill march to anti-intellectualism since then.Materialism killed the scientific star.
Last edited by
NicolasJaden on March 18th, 2011, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.