Supertramp Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Pharmaceutical companies are among the richest of all the businesses on the stock market. Yet the majority of 'research scientists' who work for them are poorly paid lab assistants, all be it with degrees in chemistry etc. Science in general is not noted for providing particularly well paid careers, with a few exceptions, and tends to be something of a Cinderella profession, even though we keep being told we need more science students. So if it's not the workers who are making mega dosh, who is? I think you want to live in some fantasy world. The people who make the most money are the people who risk the most money into R&D that may never pay off. If you invest billions into something would you not want any return on your investment? You'd be happy to give it all away I guess whilst living in a 2 up 2 down in la la land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Pharmaceutical companies are among the richest of all the businesses on the stock market. Yet the majority of 'research scientists' who work for them are poorly paid lab assistants, all be it with degrees in chemistry etc. Science in general is not noted for providing particularly well paid careers, with a few exceptions, and tends to be something of a Cinderella profession, even though we keep being told we need more science students. So if it's not the workers who are making mega dosh, who is? The people who invest money in the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 It's not just drugs. I think it's unfair that children have to pay extortionate prices to gain access to computer software, which should be a lot cheaper or free. People living in North Korea don't pay for their computer software. It's not just drugs and software, it's practically everything, food even. It's like there's this new two tier system of money that thinks it's OK to pay certain people millions in bonuses, huge salaries, when they invent or sell things, whilst people not working seem to get very little. Is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) It's not just drugs. I think it's unfair that children have to pay extortionate prices to gain access to computer software, which should be a lot cheaper or free. People living in North Korea don't pay for their computer software. It's not just drugs and software, it's practically everything, food even. It's like there's this new two tier system of money that thinks it's OK to pay certain people millions in bonuses, huge salaries, when they invent or sell things, whilst people not working seem to get very little. Is that fair? See, Anna? That's the level of cynicism you want to aspire to On the topic of return on investment for inventions (drugs-related or otherwise): historically, less than 1 in 10 invention (the subject of a patent application) makes any money at all ('breaking even' is 'making money' under that yardstick). That's 9 out of 10 concepts thrown money at them (a few £ks to £bns) with about as much effect as peeing in a violin to get a tune. Such is commercial life. Since the year dot. There is a very good reason why the first thing I ever explain to any new client, is that their IP is never going to make them rich in and of itself: only their successful commercialisation of it will. Edited June 2, 2015 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Cynicism? Moi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Pharmaceutical companies are among the richest of all the businesses on the stock market. Yet the majority of 'research scientists' who work for them are poorly paid lab assistants, all be it with degrees in chemistry etc. Science in general is not noted for providing particularly well paid careers, with a few exceptions, and tends to be something of a Cinderella profession, even though we keep being told we need more science students. So if it's not the workers who are making mega dosh, who is? Pharmaceutical companies tend to be very large, so they generally tend to be rich. But what is "rich" as that's something that needs defining - market capitalisation? Turnover? Cash on hand? Margin? Define "rich" first.... Chemists are not the best paid scientists, but they are not necessarily poorly paid - 25 to 40k a year dependant on experience for a typical staffing post. Why though should the workers make the mega dosh? (assuming that this exists - see the reasons before you've handwaved away and not answered). They are not putting up the risk in the venture, so they are not that likely to get the rewards - if they want the risk then they can always buy some shares in the company and participate in the profits - or the losses. Have you looked at what happened to GSK last year when they had dissapointing drug results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 ...Have you looked at what happened to GSK last year when they had dissapointing drug results? Did they find a new dealer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) It's not just drugs. I think it's unfair that children have to pay extortionate prices to gain access to computer software, which should be a lot cheaper or free. People living in North Korea don't pay for their computer software. It's not just drugs and software, it's practically everything, food even. It's like there's this new two tier system of money that thinks it's OK to pay certain people millions in bonuses, huge salaries, when they invent or sell things, whilst people not working seem to get very little. Is that fair? if the people who don't work, worked then they would be able to afford things. anyway, there is a fantastic array of free (as in beer and as in lunch) software available which is just as good, if not better, than non-free software. ---------- Post added 02-06-2015 at 09:38 ---------- Why though should the workers make the mega dosh? (assuming that this exists - see the reasons before you've handwaved away and not answered). They are not putting up the risk in the venture, so they are not that likely to get the rewards - if they want the risk then they can always buy some shares in the company and participate in the profits - or the losses. it's the workers who turn the money risked by the investors into the wealth they later claim so it's only right that they get a share of that wealth. Edited June 2, 2015 by andyofborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 if the people who don't work, worked then they would be able to afford things. anyway, there is a fantastic array of free (as in beer and as in lunch) software available which is just as good, if not better, than non-free software. ---------- Post added 02-06-2015 at 09:38 ---------- it's the workers who turn the money risked by the investors into the wealth they later claim so it's only right that they get a share of that wealth. Isn't that what a salary is for...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Did they find a new dealer? Haha! Their reps are the dealers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now