American management hasn’t exactly been covering itself with glory either for the last 35 years. Union power is a fraction of what it was in the 60s and 70s. If companies have been failing, management needs to look in the mirror.
The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management. A union has a gun pointed at management's head which both consumes attention and prevents flexibility. That's over and above the problem that gov unions create.
Remember Fordism? If you don’t pay your workers a living wage, eventually you’re not going to have anyone left to buy your product.
That's a myth which pops up every now and then, sometimes even by Ford itself. Ford's problem was retention, average time on the line was 3-4 months, ergo his productivity was crazy low. By increasing pay and reducing hours work, he massively increased his productivity.
In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#694490dd1c96
There are 24 hours in a day and running two 9 hour shifts meant that his factories were sitting idle for 6 hours a day, 2/3rds of a full shift. By going to an eight hour workday and a five day standard work week, Ford was able to run his factories with three shifts, 24 hours a day. Eliminating the half shift on Saturdays meant that, with overtime, FoMoCo plants could run 24/7/365 if he wanted.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/10/henry-ford-paid-workers-5-day-wouldnt-quit-afford-model-ts/
Economic growth is a good idea, but only counts as a solution if you can work out how to make it happen.
Things which increase our economic freedom ranking are probably the place to start. IMHO we have huge economic distortions imposed by the gov. Ergo we have a high return on investment for political lobbying, a tax code which isn't humanly understandable, and so forth.
Unfortunately the people responsible for fixing this, the politicians, also have the most to lose if they do because they'd be handing back to the market various "opportunities" for politicians to "help" people.
This was why I was wondering about take home pay vs income. Income has been stagnant for large groups of people, taxes have probably been going up, it's possible actual take home pay has been going down... but I can't find good numbers for this.
For that matter even 'stagnant' is probably pretty bad for a lot of people. IMHO many people spend up to where their income is, so if that income isn't going up then eventually they're going to have problems.
It's easier for me to see him managing the country to help his business interests than him stepping down. But yeah, I can totally see him delegating everything the president does (other than the microphone) to minions.
The thing is, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It worked decently well for Reagan.
My expectation is he mimics Arnold Schwarzenegger on steroids. There are big picture things that should be done, he doesn't really know what they are or how to do them, dude just wants to be popular.
First of all, really, really good post. This ties together a number of things which should be without jumping to some predetermined conclusion not supported by the evidence.
I do wonder if take home pay (meaning after taxes) is decreasing (as opposed to salary).
In terms of solutions, the big one is probably "Economic growth".
Oscar Gordon:
ETA: I know there are unions and companies in the US that do have mutually beneficial relationships.I would bet that if those sets were looked at, we’d find that they are newer companies and newer unions.
OK, I'll bite. What do unions bring to the table to make it "mutually beneficial" which couldn't be better done if they didn't exist? What can they do other than not blow up the company?
The long term experience in the US appears to be that companies with unions go bankrupt.
‘Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.’
There are counter arguments, like a survey showing 4% of the population agreeing that they'd been decapitated (NPR on some game show), and one would hope that 'unexpired' wouldn't be necessary.
However I think I need to concede the argument instead.
I think the general idea is a good one, I also think that people would benefit from having access to IDs, but it seems there are serious flaws in the on-the-table implementation which don't take into account everyone's real world situation.
It’s possible Hogan was willing to face a jury because he’d managed to get the case tried in his hometown, where he enjoyed status as a local hero. Or maybe he was willing (or obligated) to risk trial because someone else was bankrolling his legal team.
Or maybe Hogan was a multimillionaire who was out for revenge and didn't really care about the money, just exactly like the billionaire who was out for revenge and didn't care about the money.
My expectation is Thiel didn't fund only Hogan, he probably funded *everyone* he could get his hands on who he figured had a shot. Some settled, Hogan was out for blood.
Because approximately *11%* of the adult population does not have a government-issued photo IDs.
Source?
Are you willing to accept that, I dunno, *1%* of the people who currently do not have IDs do not have IDs because they cannot prove who they are?
So they do not and can not drive, they don't have birth certificates, bank accounts, enough contact with the gov to ask for a free id, and so forth?
It's trivial to think of cases where that's going to be true (extreme mental illness/disfunction, extreme age to the point of disfunction, people on the run from the law, illegal aliens, etc). It's harder to see how that wouldn't also prevent them from voting.
Please source who you're talking about because you've lost me.
With eleven weeks until the election, Trump can’t win without a massive Clinton stumble or a powerful black swan event.
I would hope this was true for many weeks before this point. :)
RE: Picking good people.
Yes, his picks thus far have been poor... although to be fair, I'm more impressed with the 'fire the failures' thing he's got going than I was with W's 'he's failed, but he is loyal, keep him on'.
A lot of this is because it's Trump's first time being a politician and/or running for anything. Note this *also* wouldn't imply good things for a President Trump, he'd make a bunch of 'rookie' mistakes and it'd be years before he figured out the job.
Most of your post is devoted towards claiming fraud on this level is fairly rare, and I agree, this is a corner case. But that still leaves us with the issue of which is better, having voter id or not having it? Preventing a legit person from voting causes constitutional issues, but so does letting someone who shouldn't. Further the gov has a legit interest in showing it takes voting seriously.
Dark Matter: To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that IDs prevents, or even suppresses, legit voters from voting.
DavidTC: To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that you are not John Wayne Gacy and this isn’t an attempt to murder people as they get photo IDs.
*That's* your actual answer? No evidence, no support, just a raw non sequitur.
Let's just count. I have 4 picture ids trivially accessible right now, 2 or 3 of which I *always* have on me. I probably have another dozen cards of various types which have my name, I also have several hundred utility bills of various sorts which prove I live where I claim I do depending on how old they can be.
I use these picture ids to do various every-day things (like work or eat lunch), I'm required to use them for various activities. Some constitutionally protected activities already require id (the most extreme being buying guns). I get that I'm probably an extreme case, but the bulk of society is structured so it's somewhere between challenging and impossible to function without an id.
So, again, how big a problem would voter id cause?
I'm pretty sure everyone asking those questions knew that Elena Kagan had graduated from college.
Further, even asking those questions is unworkable in real life.
200 resumes on your desk, you want to select for intelligence and determination (among other things). Bringing them all in for interviews is a non-starter, ditto even calling them up.
We have numerous people who have the legal right to vote, from various jurisdictions which have implemented voter ID requirements, bringing complaints because, for them, getting an acceptable ID is, at best, a serious obstacle to voting.
Source?
You may not find the evidence conclusive, but the idea that it doesn’t exist is just wrong.
Oh I absolutely agree the idea is out there. The issue is whether it's wishful thinking on a bullet issue or not.
For example, we might see companies requiring college degrees for jobs that have never needed them before and still don’t actually need them. For example.
I think companies aren't allowed to give IQ tests, & personality tests are subject to being gamed. So if you want to hire a workforce and select for intelligence and determination, how do you do that?
When Republicans start talking about voter ID, they will *immediately* bring up election fraud that ID wouldn’t do a damn thing about.
Because those are the biggest, most blatant examples, and Dems often squeak about how there's no evidence of fraud, just like they're trying to claim right now that there are no problems with the IRS.
Voter ID stops exactly one thing: Voter impersonation. That’s it. If you are talking about voter ID and mention *any sort of election fraud besides voter impersonation* as being a rational for it, you are a deliberate liar.
My stated problem was dead people voting. And yes, in order to have dead people voting you need to have lists of the dead supplied by (presumably high level) election officials.
All of the other examples are to show that we know darn well that election fraud has been done in the past and there is (presumably) interest in having it done now. Any internet search of "dead people voting" results in recent issues, which may or may not have been intentional (dead people signing registration forms is probably the work of low level organizers paid by the signature, but it still smells).
http://www.progressivestoday.com/clinton-campaign-lawyer-charged-with-registering-dead-people-to-vote/
To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that IDs prevents, or even suppresses, legit voters from voting. If that's true, then what exactly is the issue here?
You’re talking about cross-referencing public records on millions of votes cast and it is entirely expected that you will run into clerical mismatches.
It is also expected that the bottom of a barrel is slimy. I'd expect it to be more an issue in the South than California but whatever.
Can you re-state this in a way that applies to other constitutional rights? For example: “It should be at least as difficult to purchase a used gun as to get on an airplane” or “It should be at least as difficult to worship in public as it is to buy alcohol”.
You're claiming it's easier to buy a gun than get on a plane? And as long as we're talking about firearms, are you claiming we should let people buy/use/store firearms without any sort of ID or check because it's a constitutional right?
Voter identification has been discussed for decades, there has been plenty of resources and time to make the case that the law is both necessary and narrow. So why does that case continue to rely on such shoddy evidence?
:Shrug: We spend roughly zero money investigating it, and anyone in power who benefited from it won't want evidence or investigations to happen (witness the 1960 election). Further the opposite argument also applies even more so, in the places which do check ids, does this in practice prevent anyone from voting?
Big picture is it's probably a good thing to pay more attention to the ballot box and maintaining the integrity of the same.
InMD: I’ve also never seen convincing evidence that we have a voter fraud problem, which again, raises questions to me about the true intentions.
1) We have Chicago, home of "Vote early and vote often", which probably stole the 1960 Presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies
2) Bush v. Gore was close enough that any fraud would have been magnified. And that's at a Presidential level where this would be really hard and (normally) pointless.
3) IDs at the ballot are to prevent dead people from voting.
4) It stands out as odd that we insist on more ID to buy alcohol or get on an airplane than to vote.
And yes, I expect everyone involved has ulterior motives. Witness one side claims need to allow anyone to vote unless they're using the IRS to suppress the vote.
I’d say this situation exists because individuals expectations have outrun the market’s ability to realize them. Or not, depending on which part of the market you focus on.
I think it's appropriate to hold an organization responsible for situations which it helped create. An organization does what is best for itself, be it the church, or the university, or a used car dealership. We get into trouble when we lose sight of that.
Assume you're thinking about getting into a high level PhD program.
Is your so-called "advisor" going to tell you there's no job for you and it's a waste of time/money? Is the college? Are the job placement stats openly published and easy to understand? If a professor does tell his minions that they shouldn't be there, what happens to "his" job and status?
I think today there is a greater degree of scorn and dismissal of college and its worth which is reflected in our policy preferences.
1) Colleges have increased their prices a lot since the 1960's. It's possible to think a $15k car is great while thinking the same car at $75k is a rip off. Return the cost of college back to what it was in the 1960's and public funding instantly goes to back to close to 100%.
2) The extra price of these colleges isn't backed up by an increase in value, more like an increase in administration.
3) Various wings of colleges swing really hard to the left, political indoctrination isn't a "public good". Nor is funding various leftist professors' agendas. The right wing isn't going to fund groups whose entire purpose is to support the left.
4) There is a lot more demand for the public dollar. Some of the trade offs are going to be ugly. A dollar spent on college is a dollar not spent on pensions.
5) Various wings of Colleges are terrible at having jobs available for their grads after they leave, this is especially true for the "academic track".
So yeah, there's a "greater degree of scorn and dismissal", but there's a lot of room for improvement on behalf of the colleges themselves.
What does it say about society that we can produce an over-supply of people who have the intelligence, interest/passion and determination to receive advanced degrees in numerous subjects from History to Biology but not enough well-paying jobs for that level of educational obtainment?
This situation exists because it's in the best interest of the University to have lots of PhD students working as slightly paid labor, doing research for their professor. That's great while it lasts, but long term there's no academic job there, and maybe no job at all.
Self interest is part of every level of society, understand that and move on.
A friend of mine worked in industry with her PhD in chem, decided to switch to academics. She could not get a tenure track position and ended up as an adjunct and working for Kaplan as an SAT and SAT II tutor. She is back in Industry.
Simplified to a sentence, Hitler's rise shouldn't mention hyper-inflation. Ditto simplified to a paragraph.
But at 5 minutes where they go over economic problems it's odd to skip the whole 'oops, we destroyed the economy and everyone's life savings' aspect to it.
What separates a successful CEO or successful entrepreneur from a failed one? Mastery of spreadsheets? Skill at logic? Grasp of monetary policy? How does one learn the art of capturing what people dream of, to inspire them and handle the tricky waters of interpersonal relationships?
Intuitively I'd guess there are a lot more successful CEOs who know a lot about (Econ and/or Engineering and/or Math) and little about (Art and/or Philosophy and/or Literature) than the reverse. Looking up the actual answer... we find that's exactly true.
Percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs with...
An engineering degree: 33%
An undergrad degree in business: 11%
Actually you should learn the foreign language in High School.
I tend to agree with this... but there are a limit to how many "must have" subjects there can be, and this tends to hit the radar as 2nd teer. It would be nice, it's not actually necessary if they know English.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Globalism vs Populism vs Empricism”
@francis
The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management. A union has a gun pointed at management's head which both consumes attention and prevents flexibility. That's over and above the problem that gov unions create.
That's a myth which pops up every now and then, sometimes even by Ford itself. Ford's problem was retention, average time on the line was 3-4 months, ergo his productivity was crazy low. By increasing pay and reducing hours work, he massively increased his productivity.
In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#694490dd1c96
There are 24 hours in a day and running two 9 hour shifts meant that his factories were sitting idle for 6 hours a day, 2/3rds of a full shift. By going to an eight hour workday and a five day standard work week, Ford was able to run his factories with three shifts, 24 hours a day. Eliminating the half shift on Saturdays meant that, with overtime, FoMoCo plants could run 24/7/365 if he wanted.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/10/henry-ford-paid-workers-5-day-wouldnt-quit-afford-model-ts/
"
@james-k
Things which increase our economic freedom ranking are probably the place to start. IMHO we have huge economic distortions imposed by the gov. Ergo we have a high return on investment for political lobbying, a tax code which isn't humanly understandable, and so forth.
Unfortunately the people responsible for fixing this, the politicians, also have the most to lose if they do because they'd be handing back to the market various "opportunities" for politicians to "help" people.
This was why I was wondering about take home pay vs income. Income has been stagnant for large groups of people, taxes have probably been going up, it's possible actual take home pay has been going down... but I can't find good numbers for this.
For that matter even 'stagnant' is probably pretty bad for a lot of people. IMHO many people spend up to where their income is, so if that income isn't going up then eventually they're going to have problems.
On “Switching Horses Midstream”
It's easier for me to see him managing the country to help his business interests than him stepping down. But yeah, I can totally see him delegating everything the president does (other than the microphone) to minions.
The thing is, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It worked decently well for Reagan.
My expectation is he mimics Arnold Schwarzenegger on steroids. There are big picture things that should be done, he doesn't really know what they are or how to do them, dude just wants to be popular.
On “Globalism vs Populism vs Empricism”
First of all, really, really good post. This ties together a number of things which should be without jumping to some predetermined conclusion not supported by the evidence.
I do wonder if take home pay (meaning after taxes) is decreasing (as opposed to salary).
In terms of solutions, the big one is probably "Economic growth".
"
OK, I'll bite. What do unions bring to the table to make it "mutually beneficial" which couldn't be better done if they didn't exist? What can they do other than not blow up the company?
The long term experience in the US appears to be that companies with unions go bankrupt.
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
There are counter arguments, like a survey showing 4% of the population agreeing that they'd been decapitated (NPR on some game show), and one would hope that 'unexpired' wouldn't be necessary.
However I think I need to concede the argument instead.
I think the general idea is a good one, I also think that people would benefit from having access to IDs, but it seems there are serious flaws in the on-the-table implementation which don't take into account everyone's real world situation.
"
Thank you.
No, I think I need to concede the point. Which in turn means the ACLU's lawsuit will most likely succeed, and that it most likely should.
On “Did I Kill Gawker?”
Or maybe Hogan was a multimillionaire who was out for revenge and didn't really care about the money, just exactly like the billionaire who was out for revenge and didn't care about the money.
My expectation is Thiel didn't fund only Hogan, he probably funded *everyone* he could get his hands on who he figured had a shot. Some settled, Hogan was out for blood.
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
Source?
So they do not and can not drive, they don't have birth certificates, bank accounts, enough contact with the gov to ask for a free id, and so forth?
It's trivial to think of cases where that's going to be true (extreme mental illness/disfunction, extreme age to the point of disfunction, people on the run from the law, illegal aliens, etc). It's harder to see how that wouldn't also prevent them from voting.
Please source who you're talking about because you've lost me.
On “Switching Horses Midstream”
I would hope this was true for many weeks before this point. :)
RE: Picking good people.
Yes, his picks thus far have been poor... although to be fair, I'm more impressed with the 'fire the failures' thing he's got going than I was with W's 'he's failed, but he is loyal, keep him on'.
A lot of this is because it's Trump's first time being a politician and/or running for anything. Note this *also* wouldn't imply good things for a President Trump, he'd make a bunch of 'rookie' mistakes and it'd be years before he figured out the job.
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
Given how much of society is based on having this (i.e. how messed up you are if you don't have an id), I agree totally.
"
Most of your post is devoted towards claiming fraud on this level is fairly rare, and I agree, this is a corner case. But that still leaves us with the issue of which is better, having voter id or not having it? Preventing a legit person from voting causes constitutional issues, but so does letting someone who shouldn't. Further the gov has a legit interest in showing it takes voting seriously.
*That's* your actual answer? No evidence, no support, just a raw non sequitur.
Let's just count. I have 4 picture ids trivially accessible right now, 2 or 3 of which I *always* have on me. I probably have another dozen cards of various types which have my name, I also have several hundred utility bills of various sorts which prove I live where I claim I do depending on how old they can be.
I use these picture ids to do various every-day things (like work or eat lunch), I'm required to use them for various activities. Some constitutionally protected activities already require id (the most extreme being buying guns). I get that I'm probably an extreme case, but the bulk of society is structured so it's somewhere between challenging and impossible to function without an id.
So, again, how big a problem would voter id cause?
On “Movie Review: Jack Strong”
Snowden became public in May or June of 2013.
Jack Strong (the film) was released in Feb of 2014 (July 2015 in the US) but shot in January of 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Strong_(film)
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
I'm pretty sure everyone asking those questions knew that Elena Kagan had graduated from college.
Further, even asking those questions is unworkable in real life.
200 resumes on your desk, you want to select for intelligence and determination (among other things). Bringing them all in for interviews is a non-starter, ditto even calling them up.
"
Source?
Oh I absolutely agree the idea is out there. The issue is whether it's wishful thinking on a bullet issue or not.
"
I think companies aren't allowed to give IQ tests, & personality tests are subject to being gamed. So if you want to hire a workforce and select for intelligence and determination, how do you do that?
"
Because those are the biggest, most blatant examples, and Dems often squeak about how there's no evidence of fraud, just like they're trying to claim right now that there are no problems with the IRS.
My stated problem was dead people voting. And yes, in order to have dead people voting you need to have lists of the dead supplied by (presumably high level) election officials.
All of the other examples are to show that we know darn well that election fraud has been done in the past and there is (presumably) interest in having it done now. Any internet search of "dead people voting" results in recent issues, which may or may not have been intentional (dead people signing registration forms is probably the work of low level organizers paid by the signature, but it still smells).
http://www.progressivestoday.com/clinton-campaign-lawyer-charged-with-registering-dead-people-to-vote/
To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that IDs prevents, or even suppresses, legit voters from voting. If that's true, then what exactly is the issue here?
"
It is also expected that the bottom of a barrel is slimy. I'd expect it to be more an issue in the South than California but whatever.
You're claiming it's easier to buy a gun than get on a plane? And as long as we're talking about firearms, are you claiming we should let people buy/use/store firearms without any sort of ID or check because it's a constitutional right?
:Shrug: We spend roughly zero money investigating it, and anyone in power who benefited from it won't want evidence or investigations to happen (witness the 1960 election). Further the opposite argument also applies even more so, in the places which do check ids, does this in practice prevent anyone from voting?
Big picture is it's probably a good thing to pay more attention to the ballot box and maintaining the integrity of the same.
"
1) We have Chicago, home of "Vote early and vote often", which probably stole the 1960 Presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies
2) Bush v. Gore was close enough that any fraud would have been magnified. And that's at a Presidential level where this would be really hard and (normally) pointless.
3) IDs at the ballot are to prevent dead people from voting.
https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/
4) It stands out as odd that we insist on more ID to buy alcohol or get on an airplane than to vote.
And yes, I expect everyone involved has ulterior motives. Witness one side claims need to allow anyone to vote unless they're using the IRS to suppress the vote.
On “University reform: Demand driven system has devalued degrees and made some feel like failures”
I think it's appropriate to hold an organization responsible for situations which it helped create. An organization does what is best for itself, be it the church, or the university, or a used car dealership. We get into trouble when we lose sight of that.
Assume you're thinking about getting into a high level PhD program.
Is your so-called "advisor" going to tell you there's no job for you and it's a waste of time/money? Is the college? Are the job placement stats openly published and easy to understand? If a professor does tell his minions that they shouldn't be there, what happens to "his" job and status?
"
1) Colleges have increased their prices a lot since the 1960's. It's possible to think a $15k car is great while thinking the same car at $75k is a rip off. Return the cost of college back to what it was in the 1960's and public funding instantly goes to back to close to 100%.
2) The extra price of these colleges isn't backed up by an increase in value, more like an increase in administration.
3) Various wings of colleges swing really hard to the left, political indoctrination isn't a "public good". Nor is funding various leftist professors' agendas. The right wing isn't going to fund groups whose entire purpose is to support the left.
4) There is a lot more demand for the public dollar. Some of the trade offs are going to be ugly. A dollar spent on college is a dollar not spent on pensions.
5) Various wings of Colleges are terrible at having jobs available for their grads after they leave, this is especially true for the "academic track".
So yeah, there's a "greater degree of scorn and dismissal", but there's a lot of room for improvement on behalf of the colleges themselves.
"
This situation exists because it's in the best interest of the University to have lots of PhD students working as slightly paid labor, doing research for their professor. That's great while it lasts, but long term there's no academic job there, and maybe no job at all.
Self interest is part of every level of society, understand that and move on.
Industry loves chemists. Academics loves itself.
On “New TED-ED Animation Provides a Case Study in How Fascists Get Democratically Elected”
Simplified to a sentence, Hitler's rise shouldn't mention hyper-inflation. Ditto simplified to a paragraph.
But at 5 minutes where they go over economic problems it's odd to skip the whole 'oops, we destroyed the economy and everyone's life savings' aspect to it.
On “University reform: Demand driven system has devalued degrees and made some feel like failures”
Intuitively I'd guess there are a lot more successful CEOs who know a lot about (Econ and/or Engineering and/or Math) and little about (Art and/or Philosophy and/or Literature) than the reverse. Looking up the actual answer... we find that's exactly true.
Percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs with...
An engineering degree: 33%
An undergrad degree in business: 11%
http://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-majored-in-engineering-2011-3#33-of-the-sp-500-ceos-undergraduate-degrees-are-in-engineering-and-only-11-are-in-business-administration-1
Looking at just the top 15...
8 engineering, two econ, two business, one political science, one TV&Radio, one Liberal Arts.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionals/102015/americas-top-ceos-and-their-college-degrees.asp
"
I tend to agree with this... but there are a limit to how many "must have" subjects there can be, and this tends to hit the radar as 2nd teer. It would be nice, it's not actually necessary if they know English.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.