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

McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 324 posts

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#191

Post by rightbyte »

remarkEon wrote: post #152

A little unrelated to this whole thing, which does hit me a bit personally since my cousin back in Iowa died of opioid-related dependency issues, but I have interviewed a lot of consultants over the years for various roles and they are without question the most consistently bad interviews. It's funny, when I was in business school years ago (please forgive me) getting a job at McKinsey or BCG was more or less the crè…

McKinsey is sweatshop but with good pay. The work conditions are atrocious and they grind through naive young people like Verdun.

Some people have argued on HN that the consultants are cya and political support for things the management class allready know they want. That seem about right.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#192

Post by [deleted] »

badpun wrote: post #184
sumedh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they getting huge bonuses or dividends?

Jailing people just for having a stake in a company that did something illegal could kill the economy. People would be affraid to invest in companies, and move money to simple things like real estate (or to foreign investments).

[deleted]

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#194

Post by sumedh »

badpun wrote: post #184
sumedh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they getting huge bonuses or dividends?

Jailing people just for having a stake in a company that did something illegal could kill the economy. People would be affraid to invest in companies, and move money to simple things like real estate (or to foreign investments).

> to simple things like real estate (or to foreign investments)

Are you saying that is not happening now?

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#195

Post by portaouflop »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #109
tdb7893 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even amongst management consulting firms McKinsey is known as the unethical one. I know someone who worked for Bain and when I gave him shit for it his answer was always "hey, at least I don't work at McKinsey"

MBB alum here-- Here's the thing: these firms are set up as partnerships meaning each of the partners (but really the senior partners) has their own little world enabled by their equity and voting power. They each have their own spin on the "values," risk tolerance, communication style, "followers," etc. Trying to paint the entire firm with the same brush is naive. Like anything else, there are good and there are bad…

I’ll happily pint anyone who works at McKinsey with the same brush.

I don’t care what your values are - if you work for McKinsey you are a piece of shit simple as

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#196

Post by LightBug1 »

And I bet, for many, when the dust settles, the McKinsey name will still be held in relative high regard, and the opioid affected victims, on the streets, in poverty, will be blamed for ... not pulling themselves together, or as being a drag on society.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#197

Post by tiborsaas »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #105

Not nearly enough. Make it $650B and if they can't pay, break up the company.

Payment should not be an option. If people can be executed for a single murder then assisting in starting an epidemic with 640000 casualties (and also serious side effects) should kill the company. Revoke business licenses, seize assets, use it for damage control.

"More than 645,000 people(opens new window) in the United States have died from overdoses involving opioids since the epidemic began"

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/connect2health/foc...

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#198

Post by mattkevan »

badpun wrote: post #184
sumedh wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they getting huge bonuses or dividends?

Jailing people just for having a stake in a company that did something illegal could kill the economy. People would be affraid to invest in companies, and move money to simple things like real estate (or to foreign investments).

If the companies they’re investing in aren’t doing anything dodgy they’ve got nothing to worry about.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#199

Post by nkrisc »

zmgsabst wrote: post #170
threeseed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about legal matters then words are important. No one was ever forced to take a vaccine. Nor were they coerced by the state.

They were coerced by the state: they issued mandates which required vaccination to engage in normal rights. That’s the literal definition of coercion. I think it’s interesting how many people deny that — almost as if you know what was done is morally repugnant.

Viruses are not concerned with ethics and morals.

Re: McKinsey and Company to pay $650M for role in opioid crisis

#200

Post by gonzobonzo »

toyg wrote: post #163
gonzobonzo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A slap on the wrist. After a half million Americans have died from a crisis they helped kickstart, they should be facing criminal charges and jail time. I keep reading people who say, over and over again, that the war on drugs is a failure and that it's a mistake to try criminally prosecute suppliers and send them to prison. People will always find a way to get the drugs if they want them, we're told. But then I se…

The difference is consent, particularly at the very beginning. Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime. Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility.

> Patients typically have to trust a doctor; the definition of consent in those circumstances is very strict, side effects have to be declared etc etc. Any abuse of that consent, like in this case, must be treated like a crime.

> Whereas when it comes to individuals deciding on their own to experience something, it's all about personal responsibility.

The problem with this framing (and some of the other comments have used this framing as well) is acting as if other drugs would not have the same issues as opioids. But if anything, the opioid epidemic has shown the opposite to be the case - people irresponsibly push drugs onto people even when access is limited to a group like doctors who are supposed to be well educated and discerning.

Post reply on HN