Until that happens, universities won't. Markets are clearing.
Even so, stuff like this reminds me not to take too romantic a view of "non-profit" higher education.
Would that be why they are drowning in higher education debt?
Such failures in logic occur when you try to express a systematic social problem (erosion of labour rights and lack of unionisation in higher education institutions among adjuncts and graduate students) to individualist argumentation ("it's their fault for being exploited").
I think by 'easy college money' they meant student loans.
PP is looking to academia to hire and they informally offer a candidate "100", by which they mean "$100k/year", but (they later find out) the heavily underpaid post-doc took to mean "$100/day", and they debate whether they should write up the offer letter with the lower amount.
I still of the opinion that the university system needs a good hair cut. They are able to rake in billions of federal dollars for student loans and unlike the medical care field where federal money also goes no attempt is made to course rates. As in, if you want students on federal loans this is what you can charge per course hour for this course.
What exactly is wrong with the union-based approach (the AMA works rather nicely for physicians), and why can't the US have a proper science policy?
The AMA also has the advantage of being an incumbent. If we were to hypothesize a similar national organization for American academics that was attempting to follow a similar strategy, their first problem would be how to generate the artificial undersupply that allows members of its profession to enjoy such a favorable job market in the first place. I'm guessing anything that accomplishes that goal more quickly than waiting for a market correction would, would end up being a pretty painful experience for the large number of folks who find themselves forcibly shoved out of academia.
Academic research is very not fungible. If you think there's a 10x programmer, there's a 50x scientist, a handful more at 10x, and the median (yes,median) "nominal" scientist is probably -2x.
A unionized system will protect the -2x and the 50xs, being treated equally to these idiots, will drop out.
I'm all for free association, if scientists want to unionize, that's up to them, but the broader social consequences will not be pretty.
Students will definitely come out ahead if their teachers have time and space to 1) read the syllabus before showing up to class, 2) prepare for class, 3) hold office hours, and 4) store graded materials. Things a student can't reliably do if the teacher is a poorly-treated adjunct: a) get a letter of recommendation (no time!), b) dispute a grade the next semester (tests aren't stored on campus!), c) have comfortable office hours (meet in a hallway, sitting on a floor, because there is no office!).
Contrast to, say, video game programming, where the market forces pushing people away from those jobs do represent a fundamental truth that isn't obviously baloney: there are more people who want to program video games than society needs/wants to program video games.
* Given the set of things that market forces tell scientists they should be doing instead of science, I'm pretty sure we're dramatically underfunding them, but that's certainly debatable.
‡ Presumably perceived by you as equally as permanent as a five year academia contract.
This is a lie.
https://eecs-search.eecs.mit.edu
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/academic-affairs/faculty-resear...
https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/employment/2016_tenure_track.whtm...
I found those in 20s
For rough numbers, an epically good adjunct union might secure a 50% pay raise. But sane PhD pay rates would have to be something like 2x what they are now for it to be a viable career path for high-IQ white collar professionals. And that requires the supply to (take an economic hint and) contract.
Sure, there's massive unemployment. The same will happen with adjuncts if they unionize. But it'll be better than the current situation.
- Actors (in the aggregate) get a bigger fraction of the returns than the typical worker in other industries.
- The overwhelming number of people who make some money from acting have to supplement it with something else since they can only get a few days per year.
- Full time acting is not a viable career option for most people who would like to do it and are qualified.
- Unionization did nothing for the above dynamic, though it did have other benefits, like improving pay somewhat for those who find part-time work at all.
IOW, yes, it has benefits, no it will not return us to the state where getting a PhD becomes a viable full-time career path.
That's very true, and current and potential adjuncts should wisen up. That being said, just because you can take advantage of someone doesn't mean you should.