Research scientists with a Masters degree or PhD can look forward to earning 30k to 45k a year

what does the brainlet's ethics and morals have to do with the profitability of certain forms of research?

I think he was making an ethical/moral argument.

I guess that really depends on what you call profitable. The "free market" system abhors scientific and technological progress since it disrupts markets. It prefers stagnation, planned obsolescence, and steady markets.

For example, if you tell people that the coal industry has been lobbying against energy research for decades and they think it's a retarded conspiracy theory.

Honestly that's a great compliment to me, as I love Martin Shkreli. He's a very intelligent person, yet still has the fun-loving side to him, which is my ultimate goal.

Not him, so I wouldn't know.

Though, I'd think his standpoint would be something along the lines of a brain-drain, away from 'ethically sound' research, to the 'corrupt' corporate research.

Que? I don't know.

I wasn't really making any moral argument.

I was just stating that progress and profit are diametrically opposed to each other.

I have a MSc in chemistry, boy I would kill to make 30k a year

You should read American Psycho some time.

>another high schooler falls for the STEM money meme

Should've gone to business or trade school if you want fat stacks.

>I guess that really depends on what you call profitable.
lets go with the definition of profitable that people have always used, ok brainlet?
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profitable
>affording profits : yielding advantageous returns or results

>The "free market" system abhors scientific and technological progress since it disrupts markets. It prefers stagnation, planned obsolescence, and steady markets.
So you're saying scientific progress disrupts markets and allows for people to profit? hmm... you're just further contradicting yourself here brainlet

>For example, if you tell people that the coal industry has been lobbying against energy research for decades and they think it's a retarded conspiracy theory.
the profitability of research does not depend on external conspiracy theories brainlet

Scientific and technological progress destroys markets you "brainlet."

That's why you don't see shoe cobblers and farriers anymore. It's always why more and more jobs are automated.

>Offers no counter-arguments, just counter-assertions.
>Nor any proof, above a dictionary definition that would be subject to a measure of semantic drift.
>Calls other people brainlets.
Mhm, really gets those neurons firing.

I think you're the brainlet, buddy. :)

>Scientific and technological progress destroys markets you "brainlet."
do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?

>It's always why more and more jobs are automated.
do you think no one makes money off automation?

i don't need to offer counter-arguments when the other posting continually offers more and more instances of people making money off of research, whether it be by disrupting markets, automation, or coca cola research

Why is the internet baiting me :((((

So, you're saying profitability is subjective, not objective?

So, which standpoint are you arguing from?

>So, you're saying profitability is subjective, not objective?
where did i say that? i didn't use either of those words

>do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?
No, that is exactly why I said that NSF has to fund all real science research, and private companies only do frivolous marketing research. In the long term, we need the hard scientific research to make progress for society.

>do you think no one makes money off automation?
Are you saying destroying all your consumer's income is good for business? People not being able to afford rent is why the housing market crashes, and soon the auto market is going to crash again.

There is no chance of you denying that this model of wealth accumulation is destructive toward society, and that it is the reason we are not doing more hard science.

I'd like to make 400k-500k though, how do I do this?

Don't say medicine, as my Asperger's gives me an awful bedside manner and House is a meme.

You do know that you don't have to use the words to imply their semantical usage, right? When will STEM guys learn English?

>do you expect everyone on the planet to profit off every piece of scientific research brainlet?
Profit for everyone or for an 'entity' would be objective. As only a certain person, or group of persons profits it is subjective.

You are arguing from the point that gaining more scientific knowledge and technological progress does not matter, and that profit is more important.

>No, that is exactly why I said that NSF has to fund all real science research, and private companies only do frivolous marketing research. In the long term, we need the hard scientific research to make progress for society.
this is meaningless

>Are you saying destroying all your consumer's income is good for business? People not being able to afford rent is why the housing market crashes, and soon the auto market is going to crash again.
where did i say anything about destroying all your consumer's income? the small number of people who lose their jobs from automation are not your entire consumer base...

>Profit for everyone or for an 'entity' would be objective. As only a certain person, or group of persons profits it is subjective.
you've just outlined an objective form and a subjective form of profitability and i don't deny the existence of either of them (and never did), so this still has nothing to do with what i was saying

>You are arguing from the point that gaining more scientific knowledge and technological progress does not matter, and that profit is more important.
again i never made this point, feel free to try to find a post where i did though

>this is meaningless
Your responses are meaningless.

>again i never made this point, feel free to try to find a post where i did though

There. You completely ignored my point.

Hard science research yields no immediate profit, and only leads to progress in the long term, but it is still needed. You just keep ignoring that fact.

If it was profitable for people to do real research, there would be tons of private research companies. The truth is that it is high risk and low reward, and free market ideals don't like new technologies destroying profitable markets.

in the post you quoted i made no reference to scientific knowledge or technological progress, i only pointed out that you contradicted yourself in saying research is 'never profitable' and then immediately saying coca cola research increases sales

try again

Nice mental gymnastics.

Again, I am pointing out the fact that you ignored my point on progress vs profit. Your response to my comment was your statement about that topic.

there's no 'mental gymnastics' going on brainlet, i'm surprised this is so difficult for you to comprehend

just because you think you deserve to be a welfare queen doing unprofitable research doesn't mean others aren't doing valuable research (and verifiably valuable, since people will pay for it)

So you are opposed to all NSF and NIH research?

yes that's exactly the conclusion you should derive from that post...

did you brainlets never pass english class in high school? where did reading comprehension go so wrong...

i'm not opposed to any research, i don't know where you keep getting these fantasies from

I just wanted to be sure of how retarded you are.

well have you come to a conclusion?

i'm still wondering where you're getting these delusions about me somehow being 'anti-research' in some way, it's truly baffling that this is a difficult train of thought for you to follow

Do you have no short term memory?

I want to go into research in Genetics and ecology. How burger flipper tier is it?

just curious, what is your source?

here's a list of people i personally know with starting offers
- BS in EE -> 80k starting w/ Texas Instruments
- masters in ME -> 85k starting w/ Toyota
- masters in EE -> 90k starting w/ Boeing
- Ph.D in EE -> 145k starting w/ NVIDIA
- Ph.D in CS -> 170k starting w/ Google

how is it that i personally know this list of people when STEM is such a worthless meme, do I just live among a sea of extreme outliers?

do you have no sarcasm detector brainlet?

did you not see that the post ended with 'i'm not opposed to any research' brainlet?

I only have a Bachelor's in CS and I had multiple offers, all $130k+ total compensation

Veeky Forums hates CS and EE, and anything not skewed towards the Science part of STEM

CS will always find you jobs and money (unless you want to make vidya kek) but it also means you are a code monkey who might kill yourself at 40.

What is with americas crazy starting salaries.
Here in the uk even the top tier starting jobs for grads start at £60k at most, ie investment banking.

'europoor' is a popular meme for a reason

Is it down to things like rent and insurance+crazy expensive schooling? I heard you all work crazy 80+ hour weeks which I guess makes your compensation fair.
In the uk we work 9 - 5 max

>total compensation
good point, those starting offers I gave were all just pure salary, didn't even include the benefits packages.

a lot of it does go to rent actually, especially if the job is located in southern california

its a combination of all those things. cost of living anywhere decent is much higher than the UK.

also, US universities are top notch. companies are getting what they pay for when they hire a US engineer. the 80+ hours a week thing is a bit of an exaggeration, its closer to 60. the US is also very large, and travel is expected. spending 100+ days a year living in a hotel is part of the job description for many STEM positions.

No, code monkey is what you are when you don't have a degree. That's me right now, stitching together tedious webapps for stupidly little money. Going to start a distance learning degree course this Oct.

Subjectivity matters, because we're attempting to define profit.

As in, is this profit objective, or subjective?

>literally 1in 100 PhD Students
cute

>unprofitable research
Kill yourself brainlet

You probably go to a real school and not a cow college in bumfuck nowhere, which is where the majority of PhD graduates come from.

>Subjectivity matters, because we're attempting to define profit.
the definition of profit is irrelevant at this point, and i've already posted it earlier in this thread anyway brainlet

>As in, is this profit objective, or subjective?
which ever profit you feel like working for, but if you choose one over the other don't complain about it later

not an arguement

this.

the glut of STEM degree holders are coming from D tier schools and degree mills like Devry and Phoenix """"University""""

What're you on about, Europe and Britain certainly aren't poor.

Our salaries are just lower, because things like healthcare aren't mafia-esque extortion in your fatherland(s).

Stop watching so much Memeyneux, he isn't and never will be a philosopher, the moron can hardly hold his own (or his temper) in the most simple of debates.

Apparently nor can you with endless ad hom.

Anyway, the reason it matters is because saying it does make profit, because it benefits a few (subjective).

Whilst that is profit, I think user meant the sort of profit that profits humanity as a whole (objective).

In other words, it would make your entire argument invalid.

define profitable research brainlet

the problem is your argument can't exist

>US universities are top notch
UK universities rank about the same and currently Cambridge has topped both UK and US universities in the current tables.

>Apparently nor can you with endless ad hom.
please point out an ad hom i made brainlet, i'd love to see you try and make such an argument

you've just trapped yourself into your own fallacy fallacy

>In other words, it would make your entire argument invalid.
how so? there are different groups who can profit, i've already agreed with that earlier, i don't see why you keep repeating this nonsense. all i'm saying is if you choose one form of profit over the other, you don't get to complain about it later on

the definition of profitable has already been posted in this thread, there's no need to repost it, and i'm sure you already know the definition of research

try again

Do you really suffer from short term memory as a previous user stated?

You've gone from attacking peoples reading comprehension to using several pejoratives, such as 'brainlet'.

That is the defintion of a personal attack, rather than attacking the argument.

>How so?
Because you would be arguing about two different concepts of profit and therefore not the same 'definition'.

As, I'm sure you might be aware, words can have several different (and sometimes drastically different) meanings and invoke different concepts.

you can't define profitable research in a project based timeline; you can't provide correlation

>profit
you're so far beyond understanding product cycles, and the value of basic research, that you shouldn't even be here

you should be reading

i'm speaking broadly. US universities specialize better than the UK, and industry hunts and picks from schools based on the specific skillset.

for example, Purdue and Texas A&M are probably the best in the world for turbomachinery, UMich is known for its nuclear and math programs. Colorado School of Mines for its geology and petroleum engineering, etc.

from my understanding the UK doesn't have that kind of specialization in its universities.

>You've gone from attacking peoples reading comprehension to using several pejoratives, such as 'brainlet'.
this is not an ad hom

>That is the defintion of a personal attack, rather than attacking the argument.
it's only an ad hom if i don't address the argument separately, but i did, so it's not an ad hom

try again, and go brush up on your fallacies

>Because you would be arguing about two different concepts of profit and therefore not the same 'definition'.
wrong again brainlet, i'm not arguing about 'different concepts' of profit and never have been. the definition is still valid

the whole point of this is that research which profits mankind as a whole is not identical to the research which generates revenue. if there was only 'one single concept' of profit there wouldn't even be a debate to begin with

>you can't define profitable research in a project based timeline; you can't provide correlation
i already have given a definition, so stop making such meaningless statements

>you're so far beyond understanding product cycles, and the value of basic research, that you shouldn't even be here
>you should be reading
speak for yourself. go open up a book on economics, literally any of them with the word 'introductory' in front should suit you

point to a project defined as PhD or post-doc level and provide the profitability assessment of that research?

are you trying to say research that leads to patents assessed as profitable?

still not possible

Somewhat, you tend to get broader specialisations, either subject schools, or subject subschools, rather than their individual modular fields.

>this is not an ad hom
It really is...

>it's only an ad hom if i don't address the argument separately, but i did, so it's not an ad hom
Considering it didn't actually address the topic and you were just insulting people, yes, yes it is.

So, your argument is:
>I redefine all (and differing) concepts of profit to fit my definition of profit to fit my ad hoc argument.
Mhm, dayum, if it only worked like that.

It doesn't.

Definitions exist as per the majority, you aren't a majority.

define particular tenants that make basic research that pointless

>point to a project defined as PhD or post-doc level and provide the profitability assessment of that research?
the profitability assessment is done by the supervisor providing funding

wow that was hard

>are you trying to say research that leads to patents assessed as profitable?
fix your grammar, try again

>It really is...
no it's not, an ad hom is a personal attack IN PLACE of an argument.

>define particular tenants that make basic research that pointless
why are you bringing up pointlessness now? we're talking about profitability here.

if you can't define pointless or unprofitable research then you won't be able to (un)attribute profit to any particular sequence of steps

Which you did actually use, more than once.
>Example:

Methinks the moron gorilla posts too much, without fact checking.

>muh funding proposal is a real life economic valuation
>brainlets defend nonsense generalizations

>if you can't define pointless or unprofitable research then you won't be able to (un)attribute profit to any particular sequence of steps
again, i don't care about pointlessness, we're talking about profitability, and the definition of profitable has already been provided, so anything not satisfying profitable is obviously unprofitable.

in that post i am replying to 'do you have a short term memory?'
do you see an argument there? 'do you have a short term memory?' is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination

try again.

this funding proposal is something IN REALITY which has been agreed to by multiple parties, so it's much more 'real life' then whatever alternative you're proposing

>30-45k for PhD research

Maybe if you are in the U.K.

>blah blah I want to make 300K+ with a research degree (PhD)

Are there any other grad students here? Honestly. One of the first things you realize when you get to grad school is no one is here to become rich. Then you see all the depressed 4th and 5th year students realizing that there is probably no job waiting for them after. Then you hear undergrads flapping their gums about
>YEAH BRO I CAN TOTALLY MAKE 200K STARTING ALL I GOTTA DO IS GRAD SCHOOL ITS SO SIMPLE!

save yourself from the delusion. Seriously, if you want to look educated on this subject, the first step is not to remain ignorant.

>8780687
if you can't attribute the success of a research project independently of each other ( sequential steps ) then you can't assess profitability independently of each other

>funding proposal agree upon by multiple parties
it is not an economic evaluation, it is one public agency justifying payment to another

is is independent, done by experts in the field ( corps who make money off that particular research ), how many steps away from profit is it, what is the risk evaluation profile for 'deadend' research or other failure?

anything you have to say is nonsense based on really myopic stupidity

Eh, from a personal point of view, I can tell you why I chose STEM/research:

1) Lifestyle
There's no 8:30 punchcard deadline. No-one gives a shit if I arrive at 10 (or lunchtime) as long as I get my work done. I get to travel and live abroad in various countries, and the community that surrounds research is not only very accepting of foreigners, but enjoys having them around.

2) No corporate bs
While having to deal with the entire grant/funding horseshit, I definitely prefer it to the corporate BS and related entities. I don't have to file monthly reports, no business partners to cater to. Research partnerships are more honest than business partnerships, and I dig that.

3) The research itself
I can pick research topics on my own, based on personal interest - I don't have to compromise a lot because the research isn't profitable. While obviously I have to pick 'hot topics' and have to follow the money in a way, I don't have work on toothpaste commercials just because it's the most profitable thing at the moment.

I did have some exposure to the corporate world, so my choice and opinions aren't just pulled out of my ass. Who knows, I might get sick of academia at some point and come crawling back where the money is, but for now I'm alright here..

>i don't care about pointlessness
You can't pick and choose your axioms to fit your argument, that IS ad hoc.

>Ad hom
>Example:
No argument detected, his point as (to him) a valid expression of the argument topic.

>this funding proposal is something IN REALITY which has been agreed to by multiple parties, so it's much more 'real life' then whatever alternative you're proposing
>Naivety The Post, in threads March 26!

>realizing that there is probably no job waiting for them after

Depends. I know plenty of smart Astrophysics grad students here in the UK, but they know they have little chance to get a nice post-doc within 2 years of graduating.

Meanwhile us in the Environmental and Earth sciences get postdoc/job offers halfway through our PhD. I've got 2 years to go, and have been approached by 3 different groups (that our team collaborates with) whether I'm interested in working for them after my PhD is done.
Just pick the right field, mate.

>pick the right field
you mean guess - just like the definition of profitability

>if you can't attribute the success of a research project independently of each other ( sequential steps ) then you can't assess profitability independently of each other
ok, now what's your point?

>it is not an economic evaluation, it is one public agency justifying payment to another
everything is economics

>is is independent, done by experts in the field ( corps who make money off that particular research ), how many steps away from profit is it, what is the risk evaluation profile for 'deadend' research or other failure?
not all research involves corporations, why do you keep bringing in these ridiculous notions into your reasoning?

>anything you have to say is nonsense based on really myopic stupidity
thanks for the laugh..

>You can't pick and choose your axioms to fit your argument, that IS ad hoc.
i'm not 'picking and choosing' axioms moron, this discussion has never been about 'pointlessness' until it was randomly brought up as a strawman

>No argument detected, his point as (to him) a valid expression of the argument topic.
the example you posted is me replying to:
>So you are opposed to all NSF and NIH research?
while this is also not an arguement, my reply included the direct response 'i'm not opposed to any research'.

you don't get to yell AD HOM AD AHOM just because the word brainlet is also thrown in there.

just so you can freshen up, here's a quick run down on ad hominem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

you'll notice the keyword 'rather' thrown in there

i think he was talking about SCIENTIFIC research

The STEM graduates who earn good money are in finance or engineering.

>you mean guess

Not really. A chat with postdocs or other senior researcher will very quickly tell you which fields of research offer a good chance of progression and job security.

Hint: black hole physics isn't one of them

what is unscientific about coca cola's research?

you can't define profitable research
holy shit you are daft, brainlet

I give up, you're ad homing and then giving the defintion (which fits many of previous comments) and yet you cannot see your own failings.

You're either blind, or incredibly stupid.

I'm out.

i hope you realize that post docs aren't desirable to anyone who isn't either retarded or absolutely fanatical about their work.

Yet. :^)

You underestimate the number of grad students who don't want to go work in the 'real world'.

you can control+F for the definition of profitable which is already in this thread, and then apply that adjective to research. i'm not going to reconstruct the english language for you

>I give up, you're ad homing and then giving the defintion (which fits many of previous comments) and yet you cannot see your own failings.
you've pointed out two comments where i allegedly ad hom'd, and i refuted both, and you have no further arguement.

try again

yeah, i'm sure that working more hours for half the pay is so much more desirable. it's safe to file them under the retarded category.

if u enter into a baby level field where you can predict how long your PhD will take sure, you might be able to assess how much meme-tier grant money (cough env sci) is coming in the next 5 year plan from the gov

there was no definition that could ever be assessed

Expect you didn't.

And are still failing too, aside from in your own mind.

To anyone else reading your nonsense, they understand and can comprehend your numerous fallacies (hence their continued assault upon you).

I'm SORRY you cannot, clearly we or previous teachers have failed you in some aspect.

Seek to better yourself, not aim vitriolic 'logical' assertions at people for simply challenging your preconceived, contrived and flagrantly erroneous conceptualisation of the world around you and its many intricate concepts and social contracts.

TL;DR: You're a blockhead, wannabe Stefan.

>i'm sure that working more hours for half the pay is so much more desirable
Oh please. The corporate world will chew and spit you out much quicker than academia ever could. If you're a bit of a lazy fuck, you can still be in a cozy position in universities. Business doesn't tend to tolerate that.

>baby level field
Pays the bills, is interesting enough, transferrable skills if it all goes to shit and you have to churn market analysis data for Amazon for the rest of your life. Could be worse.

>*except

yeah, glorious academia where you are forced to recruit women and """minorities""" (read: shitskins) to get grant funding.

i'll take my chances in the corporate world, thanks.

look fella, i've already given a definition, if you want another one to assess, feel free to provide an alternative, otherwise stop asking me to do what i've already done

>Expect you didn't.
i did actually, twice. your first example of my (alleged) ad hom was in response to a non-arguement. ad hom requires an arguement to be refuted, so this was not an ad hom.

and the second example of my (alleged) ad hom was in response to an arguement which i refuted and threw on a brainlet afterwards, which is not an ad hom since the arguement was refuted independently of the brainlet.

>To anyone else reading your nonsense, they understand and can comprehend your numerous fallacies (hence their continued assault upon you).
once again you've trapped yourself into the fallacy fallacy

>i'll take my chances in the corporate world, thanks.

Well, good luck. I got tired of the BS very quickly - others might be more capable of dealing with empty talk and shitting all over customers.