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

441–450 of 572 posts

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

#441

Post by StormyWeather »

trhway wrote: post #266
jancsika wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether this is a bona fide comment or a troll, I love this comment: * quick witted aikido-move-of-a-sentence to accept OP's insult, thereby disarming it * enormous paragraph made up of short, frank, vague sentences with an compelling rhythm of overarching claims that frame the 20-something haircut's ostensible work in a positive light. It's the wrong generation but I'm reading them in Ari Fleischer's no-nonsense, et…

>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…

I call bullshit on this email being sent by the firm until I see it (though I totally believe it may have been sent by someone working at the Moscow office)

Grounds:

- it goes directly against several key employees rights policies which we are reminded of by the firm itself several times a year

- its formulation is very different from the firm's language in across-the-board communications

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

#442

Post by lostcolony »

bumby wrote: post #434
lostcolony wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah; I wasn't saying one side doesn't exist. It was more in tandem with my parent post - the people who are happy to watch TV, hike, just kinda bum around, doing nothing else, desiring nothing else...how often are they great workers? I meant the question in response to the observation that "we don't know what happens long term if people are promised this kind of money" - right, but the presumption there is that it w…

> what's the concern? I think the concern is there may not be enough “ambitious” people to maintain productivity to sustain the non-ambitious folks. Thinking back to a previous job that most people would probably assume employees incredibly driven people, I can honestly say many were not. Hours wasted on long lunches/breakfasts/breaks, surfing the Internet for auctions, bouncing from office to office for hours to gos…

Your example kind of makes my point? Those people you mention...how much were they really adding to the org?

If a company is happily paying white collar worker wages to people who are that big a waste of space, why not pay them $20k in UBI and let them go, $20k to someone who needs it, and not waste everyone's time? Let those people have the safety net necessary to find themselves, so to speak. Worst case is they stay on and we're in the same situation we're in now; best case they leave and figure out what motivates them.

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

#443

Post by tkinom »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #408
crumbshot wrote: post #326

This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…

Yes, as soon as you put a price on malfeasance, it becomes a spreadsheet decision for a corporation.

$573M for 450,000 overdose deaths. $1k+ per death.

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

#444

Post by haltingproblem »

nickff wrote: post #336
haltingproblem wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse. Most of Enron management was directly sourced from McKinsey and McKinsey was intricately involved in its strategy and accounting. One day the story will be told of how they got away with it but Andersen took the whole blame. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-fea...

"The Smartest Guys in the Room" told that story, and the short version is that Andersen was the auditor which was supposed to be ferreting out accounting issues (and has certain legal responsibilities). McKinsey was a recruiting ground and consultant.

That is not what this article says:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/mar/24/enron.theob...

McKinsey was integral to designing Enron's asset light strategy and also creating the stock borrow structure, their internal talent marketplace, etc. etc. Seems like where Enron stopped and McKinsey started is hard to place.

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

#445

Post by minikites »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #392
minikites wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it shouldn't be this way, but I remember 2008 and the fact that zero people were punished. The US government will protect corporate profits at all costs.

I agree, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with this: > If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

There are enough large companies who have committed misdeeds worthy of major consequences that if we actually punished all of them in a meaningful way, the economy would fall apart, because there would not be many companies left.

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

#446

Post by s1artibartfast »

ashtonkem wrote: post #410
s1artibartfast wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.

I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.

That really depends on the the advice is. I don't see a big problem with "This would make you a bunch of money, but you should have your lawyers look at it" or "this will make you a bunch of money, but has a high legal risk".

If the advice is: "this is illegal, and here is how to avoid getting caught" then I could see that being a crime.

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

#447

Post by akira2501 »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #371
bumby wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

How do people have such a strong opinion on what level of profit is reasonable if they don't know the default rate? The average person thinks companies make over 5x the profit they actually make, and they think the amount of profit correlates negatively with how responsible and good for the world the company is (when in fact there's very little discernable correlation, and it may be positive). What profit people begr…

> if they don't know the default rate?

It's rarely ever been above 5%. Plus, a default doesn't necessarily mean the creditor lost money equal to the full value of the loan plus all interest payments. Some defaults are haircuts, some a break-even, and others simply fail to realize their full value.

> and they think the amount of profit correlates negatively with how responsible and good for the world the company is (when in fact there's very little discernable correlation, and it may be positive).

Sure, you just have to be willing to ignore "fairness, consumer protection, environmental protection satisfaction, and employee satisfaction" when considering "corporate social responsibility."

> given how uneducated those opinions generally are

So, do they merely have these opinions because they are uneducated or because they're misplacing blame in the system?

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

#448

Post by nitrogen »

bumby wrote: post #379
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do people have such a strong opinion on what level of profit is reasonable if they don't know the default rate? The average person thinks companies make over 5x the profit they actually make, and they think the amount of profit correlates negatively with how responsible and good for the world the company is (when in fact there's very little discernable correlation, and it may be positive). What profit people begr…

I’m pretty agnostic in my opinion on this personally because I don’t know their profit margin, default rate etc. I also think these lenders fulfill a worthwhile service in some cases. Note that I didn’t actually define what reasonable should be. People do get a say in the policies of their society in a democracy, whether educated or not. People also think NASAs budget is 50x what it is, but it doesn’t mean we should…

Otherwise it’s just advocating for a technocracy

A technocratic republic, maybe where we got to pick who ends up on legislative subcommittees ourselves[0], might actually be a good thing.

[0] Obviously we can imagine many other forms for a technocratic republic to take; this is just the most similar to the current system, and thus maybe least unreasonable in a path-dependency sense.

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

#449

Post by dataexporter »

underwater wrote: post #363
majani wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the first scenario the borrower can't pay their rent, is evicted and possibly becomes homeless. In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. How is that worse.

While I agree with the comments about predatory lending, I kind of feel that it has more to do with being more financially aware before agreeing to such loans. Payday lending is closer to the predatory lending practices, but I see the same kind of attitude among borrowers at lower interest rate products as well.

Borrowing when you know that you will not be able to repay the loan (or with the intention of not repaying) is also wrong.

> In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress.

In this case, the employees of the so called lender are rendered jobless and they don't meet their financial obligations and might become homeless themselves.

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

#450

Post by [deleted] »

gnulinux wrote: post #401
minikites wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

So let's allow all big companies to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise "our economy would fall apart"? This is the darkest comment I read on HN.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN