Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#341

Post by trhway »

klmadfejno wrote: post #318
trhway wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the many troubling associations McKinsey has had with shithole companies. not only shithole companies. At the total service of shithole governments: "McKinsey Bans Moscow Staff From Attending Pro-Navalny Protest ... In line with policy, McKinsey employees must not support any political activity either publicly or privately. This ban does include posts in social media featuring your political views or your attitude t…

That message was genuine, but quickly retracted and apologized for. That's not a real policy.

In Russia everyone knows which of those 2 messages is the real one guiding your cushy employment there, and which one is just a PR BS which was produced after people like Ted Cruz cried foul in the US .

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#342

Post by robertlagrant »

leafmeal wrote: post #305
vypr007 wrote: post #190

Approaching this from a cold math perspective, like a McK consultant would.. $573M settlement for approx 450k deaths, is a a little over $1200 per death if that is given away as compensation at all. Not bad for McK I'd say. The consultants really managed this well.

From the New York Times article, "The amount McKinsey is paying is substantially more than it earned from opioid-related work with Purdue or Johnson & Johnson, Endo International and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, its other opioid-maker clients, a person involved in the settlement negotiations said" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/business/mckinsey-opioids...

Oh no, they didn't break even.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#343

Post by arcticbull »

cmmeur01 wrote: post #309
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very early P2P lending participant in the early days of Prosper Lending, I've seen the other side of this. Many borrowers adopt a mindset that they have earned the money they borrowed and don't feel that they need to pay it back. I came in to Prosper with a distaste for the apparent predatory lender tactics and came out with an appreciation that not everything that seems predatory really is. While there are plen…

Asserting your debt as more important than someone's housing does seem like a pretty shitbag thing to me.

The reality is that this is a very difficult situation all around.

1) Lenders probably shouldn't be lending money to people they know cannot repay the debts. This is also why APRs are so high - most people simply don't.

2) People who know they can't repay the debts shouldn't be borrowing in the first place. This is also why lenders have to go to such extremes to collect their debts.

This is a function of being poor in a country like America with zero social safety net. If you're desperate and on the ropes and have nothing to fall back on you'll do whatever it takes to get by including take out loans that you can't afford, from lenders who know you can't repay them.

The problem isn't predatory lending, or deadbeat borrowers, it's a deeply unequal society which doesn't look after its own, with rampant wealth and income inequality and a total lack of social safety net.

In an ideal world, folks would be able to rely on unemployment or UBI to get by tough stretches, and this system would disappear instantly. Half the country is busy breathlessly screaming socialism over what the rest of the world considers a "functioning government" and the other half has other things on their mind like walking back stupid bathroom laws, and in the end, nothing fundamentally changes.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#344

Post by majani »

cmmeur01 wrote: post #309
ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very early P2P lending participant in the early days of Prosper Lending, I've seen the other side of this. Many borrowers adopt a mindset that they have earned the money they borrowed and don't feel that they need to pay it back. I came in to Prosper with a distaste for the apparent predatory lender tactics and came out with an appreciation that not everything that seems predatory really is. While there are plen…

Asserting your debt as more important than someone's housing does seem like a pretty shitbag thing to me.

Not paying back debts as agreed is tantamount to stealing, which is even shittier IMO

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#345

Post by Judgmentality »

a3n wrote: post #129
jcomis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. This likely will not effect partner comp. It will effect the firm, but partners will spin it as the guilty parties are gone and the leaders need to be retained (through comp!) to right the organization. The low levels will absorb it through lower comp. I've worked in consulting for years and no matter what happens, EVER, partner comp is NEVER effected. They will hem and haw about it, discuss it, maybe mak…

Nit: "Effect" is an Entity, a noun. They both start with "E." "Affect" is an Action, a verb. They both start with "A." Effect is sometimes used as a verb, especially in bureaucratese, but not in the way you're using it. With apologies.

https://xkcd.com/326/

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#346

Post by bumby »

ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #285
ihaveajob wrote: post #267

I know someone who worked for McKinsey for a few years, and some of the projects he described were straight up slimy. The one I recall right now was helping a big payday lender (read: large scale loan shark) figure out how to get their money back from people who were behind on their payments. The problem was that they can only attempt to withdraw so many times from someone's bank before they're banned, so the agreed…

As a very early P2P lending participant in the early days of Prosper Lending, I've seen the other side of this. Many borrowers adopt a mindset that they have earned the money they borrowed and don't feel that they need to pay it back. I came in to Prosper with a distaste for the apparent predatory lender tactics and came out with an appreciation that not everything that seems predatory really is. While there are plen…

>reasonably high APRs

I think the disagreement may be on the definition of “reasonable”.

Similar to utilities, I don’t think most people begrudge a company for making a “reasonable” profit. The problem sometimes comes when it starts to become unreasonable level of profit, predicated on lack of transparency and shady tactics

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#347

Post by arcticbull »

majani wrote: post #344
cmmeur01 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asserting your debt as more important than someone's housing does seem like a pretty shitbag thing to me.

Not paying back debts as agreed is tantamount to stealing, which is even shittier IMO

For the most part, America abolished debtors prisons in 1833, and they were found unconstitutional in 1983 (Bearden v. Georgia). I say for the most part because that offer doesn't apply to things like fines and court fees [1].

Assuming you're truthful in your application for the loan, it's not theft. It may be a poor decision on the part of the lender, but of course, that's why interest rates exist and scale with your likelihood of nonrepayment.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/08/30/federal-...

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#348

Post by leafmeal »

glaucon wrote: post #340
leafmeal wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the New York Times article, "The amount McKinsey is paying is substantially more than it earned from opioid-related work with Purdue or Johnson & Johnson, Endo International and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, its other opioid-maker clients, a person involved in the settlement negotiations said" https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/business/mckinsey-opioids...

And if I killed someone to get their wallet no one suggests that because I didn't get much out of the wallet it's OK for met to have a lenient sentence ? If McKinsey knowingly offered advice that led to thousand of deaths then the penalty should be more than $1200/body regardless of what their fees were.

What do you think an appropriate penalty is? When I first read this headline I was worried the fine would be just a slap on the wrist. I was glad to see it was more substantial.

Personally, I think a fine like this is just if it causes consulting firms to think about the consequences of their actions and do the right thing in the future. Making firms responsible for damages they cause would be best. Making it it clearly unprofitable is a good step.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#349

Post by [deleted] »

smabie wrote: post #333
Geminidog wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's neither a conspiracy, nor a scheme, nor a world of wealthy indulgence But it is a crime the company is responsible for that caused many people to die and become addicted to opioids. You think Kim Jong Un walks among the people he starves to death on a daily basis in North Korea? No. He's too high up. He's in his palace in the capital and he doesn't even see the real state of his country. He just hears about it…

Sounds like everyone is guilty? Not a very useful perspective imo

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#350

Post by Geminidog »

smabie wrote: post #333
Geminidog wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's neither a conspiracy, nor a scheme, nor a world of wealthy indulgence But it is a crime the company is responsible for that caused many people to die and become addicted to opioids. You think Kim Jong Un walks among the people he starves to death on a daily basis in North Korea? No. He's too high up. He's in his palace in the capital and he doesn't even see the real state of his country. He just hears about it…

Sounds like everyone is guilty? Not a very useful perspective imo

It's very possible for everyone to be guilty. We don't live in a world where if something isn't "useful" it isn't true.

Your statement ends up reading sort of like "Is every Nazi guilty of the holocaust?" Technically maybe not, doesn't change the fact that of the matter that overall all Nazis are guilty.

You can't run away from this with some garbage statement of "Not a very useful perspective." This incident literally killed an amount of people that is equivalent to a genocide.

Imagine if you were a Nazi and you said that. If you were just a mere guard at one of these concentration camps could you say what you just said to me to a victim who lived through the atrocity? Think about what you should say to the parents of a man/woman who died from an opioid overdose. Literally, I think you're unaware of the magnitude of the crime that was committed here.

Watch these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGcKURD_osM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXL3F5HvCr8

Post reply on HN