>"Why is the university system so negligent and abusive towards those who invent new ideas and teach new inventors?"
Have you considered the possibility that academia is paying researchers/etc what they are worth on average? Its just that the majority of people being paid are generating near zero, or negative, value to society.
I've definitely considered it. However, interestingly, to attend university in the USA usually carries a pricetag of $20,000 to $30,000 per year minimum after all the smoke and mirrors of "grants and financial aid".
So, you have consumers (students and their parents) paying real money for a real education that they are hoping will result in gainful employment. Either millions of students are overpaying every year, or the system provides some value.
Now, the ones delivering that value (grad students) are receiving maybe $8,000 per semester while teaching 100 students lets say, while the students are paying collectively nearly $1,000,000 for 4 months of tuitoon.
Where does the other $992,000 go, besides administrator salaries and football stadiums?
“Besides administrators and sports programs, glamorous campus amenities and affirmative action admittees.”
Is affirmative action really that expensive?
I believe in funding affirmative action but yes it is expensive, the university accepts the students into the school and covers much of the cost of their housing and tuition. The actual cost isn't $60,000 per year like the sticker price says, but it is certainly around $8,000-12,000 in operational costs.
When you talk to your boss about salaries, you'll quickly find out that your salary isn't determined by what value you bring to the firm, it's by whatever the market will bear.
The value you bring to the firm is a factor in that it is a cap on what you'll get paid. Value is also relative, if a monkey can provide 90% of your value then you'll get paid a little more than peanuts.
If a monkey can provide 90% of your value, but there's a shortage of people who can provide the other 10%, you might still get paid well.
I mean, if the monkey doing the can generate 900k of value per year, but a human doing is can generate 1MM per year, then it would be better to hire the human for anything up to 96k/year (assuming peanuts cost less than 1k/quarter).
If you got balls, you can try to extort your replacement value. If you come with unique skills it may be much higher than what your resumee looks like.
That requires rational thinking and accounting skills on part of management, both are often in short supply, just look at the current Elon Musk meltdown... mission-hostile management is a thing.
Have you considered the possibility that academia is paying researchers/etc what they are worth on average? Its just that the majority of people being paid are generating near zero, or negative, value to society.