I think some people are simply stupid.
Given the best resources in education, networking and even family, some people just cannot unleash their potentials in an all-supportive setting. They seek to exclude some people away from others, because they think it is fair for the other people to assert authority.
The worst culprits of stupidity would be, in my opinion, CEOs, politicians, lawyers and sometimes, financial practitioners. (Doctors, less so, it's stil present, but I will leave the issue of doctors to another post).
I don't know whether I speak my mind out of jealousy, however, in a BBC podcast I listened to (Peter Day's World Of Business), he mentioned about a report stating '70% of CEOs not being able to handle today's business demands'. Look at Satyam Computers! Why would PwC and the Satyam management not have internal control and proper management to safeguard controls in the company?
Also, similar things happen in today's politics. Why governments, especially in my country, would keep a minister who repeatedly failed his objective - take my MP for example, he's a minister, but an incompetent one. Wonder why he's elected in the first place. He imported too much external labour, far more than what Singapore can hold, as manpower minister, he refused to make the real structural changes to our education system to fit our evolving world, as education minister.
As health minister currently, under his watch, a local Polyclinic/dispensary has to move to a far more remote location when the current spaces are working well. Also, he renamed a low-income community health programme, but nothing fundamentally changed, added with the costs associated with printing materials for the programme. I question the wisdom of the crowd... until I realise the opposition candidate does nothing, but drink beer and speaks of incoherent policies that simply don't work. Why do politicians get so much money for doing little real work for the constitutents they are supposed to represent?
There are too many lawyers currently, there are too many people doing finance, as even Harvard Law students who are unemployed have to do an 'internship' to boost employability numbers, and some American finance graduates being tipped to 'Teach For America' but why do current slaaries do not reflect the value of an increased, high-quality labour supply? Why do people become lawyers and finance anyway - is for the money, or for the framework that supports the institutions of an economy?
Is it not fair to say some people are indeed stupid, to do something they can't and will not do well?
Well, perhaps we should all accept that some people are simply too incompetent, too complacent for the complexity of the work they do. If it's too complex and too boring, why even do these work, even though they're in hot demand? And should our market rate and societal attention reflect the true perfect state of matters, that the world is not fairly valued in general?
Call me unrealistic, but I consider hippies who have to be a HR manager much more worthwhile than the lawyer. At least the hippie gave 3, 4, or more years in his/her life to try something he/she likes (at least, in Singapore, law is a 4-year degree, so does a liberal arts degree).
Given the best resources in education, networking and even family, some people just cannot unleash their potentials in an all-supportive setting. They seek to exclude some people away from others, because they think it is fair for the other people to assert authority.
The worst culprits of stupidity would be, in my opinion, CEOs, politicians, lawyers and sometimes, financial practitioners. (Doctors, less so, it's stil present, but I will leave the issue of doctors to another post).
I don't know whether I speak my mind out of jealousy, however, in a BBC podcast I listened to (Peter Day's World Of Business), he mentioned about a report stating '70% of CEOs not being able to handle today's business demands'. Look at Satyam Computers! Why would PwC and the Satyam management not have internal control and proper management to safeguard controls in the company?
Also, similar things happen in today's politics. Why governments, especially in my country, would keep a minister who repeatedly failed his objective - take my MP for example, he's a minister, but an incompetent one. Wonder why he's elected in the first place. He imported too much external labour, far more than what Singapore can hold, as manpower minister, he refused to make the real structural changes to our education system to fit our evolving world, as education minister.
As health minister currently, under his watch, a local Polyclinic/dispensary has to move to a far more remote location when the current spaces are working well. Also, he renamed a low-income community health programme, but nothing fundamentally changed, added with the costs associated with printing materials for the programme. I question the wisdom of the crowd... until I realise the opposition candidate does nothing, but drink beer and speaks of incoherent policies that simply don't work. Why do politicians get so much money for doing little real work for the constitutents they are supposed to represent?
There are too many lawyers currently, there are too many people doing finance, as even Harvard Law students who are unemployed have to do an 'internship' to boost employability numbers, and some American finance graduates being tipped to 'Teach For America' but why do current slaaries do not reflect the value of an increased, high-quality labour supply? Why do people become lawyers and finance anyway - is for the money, or for the framework that supports the institutions of an economy?
Is it not fair to say some people are indeed stupid, to do something they can't and will not do well?
Well, perhaps we should all accept that some people are simply too incompetent, too complacent for the complexity of the work they do. If it's too complex and too boring, why even do these work, even though they're in hot demand? And should our market rate and societal attention reflect the true perfect state of matters, that the world is not fairly valued in general?
Call me unrealistic, but I consider hippies who have to be a HR manager much more worthwhile than the lawyer. At least the hippie gave 3, 4, or more years in his/her life to try something he/she likes (at least, in Singapore, law is a 4-year degree, so does a liberal arts degree).
