This is an interesting notion. Does this mean that wealthy people are allowed to put everyone including themselves and their families in danger because they can afford to laugh about the fines? I know from personal experience that while I'm shrugging off speeding tickets when I get them, they really cut deep into the budget of some people I know. Do you think that's right?
But a few comments up, someone mentioned points. Sure, they can decide to do that, but they will get their license taken away (and I know people that have.) It does have consequences.
I think fining the rich more because they are rich is not the way to go about it. Should we charge them more for their leisurely items? It's about choices at the end of the day. If you are worried about not being able to feed your family because of a $50 fine then don't speed! It's not something people do against their own will or because they have to (bar being late for work which I would argue isn't an excuse anyway.) That's the point of the fine: to put people off doing it.
If poor people are deterred from speeding because of the cost of the fine, then why are we talking about poor people getting fined at all, after all they wouldn't be speeding.
Just because someone has money it does not mean they will flaunt the law because they can afford the fine.
In both cases correlation does not imply causation.
Where demerit point systems are in place both poor and rich lose their licenses after too many infringements.
Yet the lesson is not the same for someone like in the article. If someone who gets a fine for $50 and can afford to pretend it never happened, then they should probably...? Be like Justin Bieber and plow through neighborhoods at 90mph?
A points system is interesting, but of course, it ignores accessibility and cost towards inevitable lawyers.
Taxing is a different issue IMO. Everybody is taxed (well...) and you don't have a choice about it. You have a choice to speed. If you want to, then go ahead and do it: but it will cost you.
>Studying for a PhD was fun, but I couldn't adjust to the lower income. I'd been working in industry for the previous five years so it was a 80% drop in income at least. Plus I got married and had a kid in those two years. That complicated things considerably.
I believe the author is suggesting that the person starts their own startup, not going to work for one. I would suggest in that case theere would be a considerable drop in income also.
There seems to be an attack on academic credentials of late, MBAs, PhD etc, even to the point that people are being told to drop out of school.
Yes there is a possibility to make it rich without all of the above, but there is an extremely high chance of failing. A lot of people who are making such claims about education are making them from a dishonest position.
Firstly look at the highest level of management, CEOs are not always experts in their fields but have a broad knowledge of operations, finance, HR, payroll, legal etc.
IT Directors do not need to be highly technical (although some technical knowledge is normally required), to manage outcomes.
Prior to my previous role at a startup, I was in the IT industry for over 15 years. What I learned taking on the CTO role is that it isn't just technical. I went from programming/infrastructure/architecting to doing budgets, recruiting, planning, and management on many levels and importantly relied on the staff underneath me to take on the low-level IT issues and provide knowledge.
Management is taking on a more important role in business in all sectors including IT. The people who fullfil these roles will start being from different backgrounds, and as organisations start to look to turn their IT departments into profit centres, they will take on people from roles like product and project management.
However I fear the day when a sales exec runs IT :)
