EVE General Discussion

Not yet true for the public sector beyond entry level.

--Gadget

In the most literal possible sense, yes, no ISK was destroyed. Only very very valuable assets were destroyed, a small portion of which awarded isk via insurance.

However, unless you are looking at the entire EVE economy at once, ISK was destroyed. Yes technically the only inlets of ISK on the global scale are bounties and npc buy orders, so buying/selling these assets wouldn't have 'made' ISK, but 350b is not enough to start talking on the global scale, it's really only a drop in the bucket in the massive EVE economy. So, unless you want to split the thinnest hairs in existence, ISK was destroyed, because very valuable assets were destroyed.

If someone had paid 7000 dollars for enough PLEX to sell for 350b, and lost it, they would be out of 7000 dollars/350b ISK with barely as much as a blip in the overall market. Thus I would say it's more than reasonable to say that it was "destroyed".

(keep in mind, the total value of PLEX traded every day in Jita is around 2.7 trillion)

idk i'm farther ahead then my friends with masters sure i had to start entry level but they time they spent paying for school i was being payed moving up. turns out seeing you work and knowing what you can do beats out a random applicant with a fancy piece of paper




....

wait how did we get on this again?

You are conflating the destruction of virtual items bought with isk, with destruction of isk.

Not one single isk was destroyed. Instead, new isk was created via insurance.
As a result of this battle, there is more isk in EVE than before the battle.

Assets bought with isk, where destroyed. Their value is destroyed, as they no longer exist.
But not even a fraction of an isk was destroyed in the entire battle.

This is not semantics, being unduly literal or hairsplitting.
Its a raw, incontrovertible fact.

Depends on what the applicant is applying for.

I spent my "college" years in public service. The type with a rifle.
Most of my HS friends (that I'm still close with these decades later) were making their marks in the private sector.

I spent my 30's chasing 'fancy piece(s) of paper' after having enough of uniforms, and a few of them were moving up in their companies. Some were having to start over because their companies went belly-up.

Now I'm in a position where I may make 3 times less than a few of my friends (though within parity for the majority of them). I mind you that some of the top paid of them are in Yankee states, while I'm in the DEEP south. Big difference in the cost of living that is reflected in pay.

On the other hand, decisions I make on an individual basis affect multiple thousands of citizens. An elected official may decide WHAT in general needs to be done. I then figure out how to DO it, and then I make it happen.

I'm serving the public's best interests, my friends are serving a handful of investors. They buy lunch...

As for degrees vs tech-school. Specialization vs generalization. In the low levels of a structure a general knowledge is helpful to start learning, but a specialist will be more sought out, and honestly, be useful. However, in the higher echelons, the generalist starts to shine when they can switch from problem to problem, as they already have basic concepts and theories under the hood. The specialists become resources for the generalist to draw upon, but the big decisions will usually be made by a non-specialist.

....

And I'm seriously trying to remember how we got here..
Oh! My snarky reply to someone about using those with doctorates as the basis for incomes averages in comparison for ISK...
or something.

--Gadget

it's pretty silly to talk about value of a doctorate based on annual income :p Like I said, there are plenty of occupations that do not require doctorate and earn more money than the avg. income of those who hold doctorate. Then you say in public sector doctorate is necessary if you want to go beyond entry level, but if we were using money as standard, then why work in public sector when private sector can pay you more. I mean I can respect those who are particularly interested in specific field/career path or have some other life goals/values whatever, and sure doctorate can help them in those cases, but avg. income is just a stupid metric to use in this discussion.

In my work I do deal regularly with government sponsored R&D institution, where pretty much everyone working there have PhD title, and you cannot get in that institution unless you are pretty much the best in the country in your field, but even at the very high level in such institutions, people earn way less than what people can make in the same industry, but working for private companies, often doing things that do not require doctorate.

For example, I work in sales & business development, which does not require any doctorate, at all, but with a good sales (which may not happen every day, but just as an example), the commission I can potentially make in a year is way more than what the highest ranked researcher/engineer/team leader/director or whatever with PhD and what not and 30+ years of experience working in such government institution can hope to earn in a year at the peak of his salary ladder.

And some of my friends, who got into finance industry and investment banking already became millionaires before they hit 30, with only bachelor's degree, and I'm the 'poor one' among my uni friends because the industry I'm in does not generate such fast money.

I mean I totally respect people who are experts in their field, and I work with such people on regular basis, people with doctorates and decades of experience in their chosen field and etc, but I never heard any of them use 'good income' as the attraction of their work or as the benefit of their doctorate.

If your goal is to make money, I see no reason to invest time to get a doctorate. There are so many money making jobs in the world that do not require such a degree, or even a university degree, so if money is the goal, doctorate is a pretty poor choice to go for. If your goal is to make money WHILE WORKING IN A VERY SPECIFIC FIELD, then yeah, doctorate will help you earn a little more in your chosen field, compared to not having such a degree.

I'm glad you are proud of your degree, and good luck with your career in your field, but please do not use avg. income of a doctorate holder as any argument because that's just ridiculous.


EDIT: ah I see you made a further post - what you say now make more sense and maybe I got you wrong somehwat, for which I apologise. In your case, yes, where you are happy doing a public service, I think it's cool & valuable thing. I just flipped a little when I thought you were emphasising on how much more one could earn with a doctorate than without. My apologies.


Just to clarify a bit more - I was referring to your post, Gadget. We have very different background. I actually spent my 20s 'chasing that piece of paper' just like you, but in the end, I got so sick of the academic industry and people who make career out of being academics. It is somewhat prejudiced, but I, in general, hate the academic world. So I went completely opposite, only looking to make money in my life, because I couldn't care less about any ideals or doing public service. I felt I sacrificed enough of my personal life time thinking/hoping to do public service, and then concluded the country, the public, and the people, were not worth my time and my service - and I too spent some time in uniforms, because the country of my origin required such national service, with no option of choosing any other alternative service.

So by the time I was done with the whole thing and looked for change in career, my mind was set. I'm never going to waste my time/effort for this country & the people again. All I care is money, for myself and for my family.

So yeah, I live completely selfish now, only caring about what goes into my pocket, and still occasionally rage when I see someone who's into academic stuff or claim to 'do good for the public'. Irrational, probably because I'm butt hurt, but that's the way it is. I cared for the world a lot, realised it's sh1thole with sh1t people, and felt like I wasted so much time and energy trying to do some 'good', so I got vengeful and decided to be a d1ck myself. :p

No Worries, Toobo.

I had originally started a WTF counter-rant before I refreshed the page and saw the edit.
I went ahead and erased what I wrote because It seemed you got what I was saying, even if you don't agree.

I don't have a problem with selfishness in the private world. That's why we have a public sector in the first place, so we can keep things separate in order to keep one person's understandable selfishness from completely destroying things for everyone else.

Get ahead, sure. Competition is good after all. Let me make this clear. I am no anti-capitalist, but unrestrained competition is just as bad as no competition.

Imagine a football match where the other team just hosed the other team down with gunfire... picked up the ball, scored the goal and declared themselves the winners. Very effective... but there would Be No More Matches after that.

I also rather agree with you about the academic world. I earned my MPA by applying to the school I wanted the degree at as an employee, because one of the perks to counter the abysmal pay was free tuition and the willingness to work with my schedule.

In fact, I worked directly with faculty in the grants department. Talk about entitlement. LOL

Still, I agree with you about how the world is moving, but only to a certain point. I guess the difference is I haven't given up the fight yet.

As a centrist (almost a bad word in the winner-take-all-system of the US) I'm mostly interested in keeping things running smoothly, legaly, and fairly. That order changes on my annoyance value

--Gadget