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

251–260 of 324 posts

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

#251

Post by xyzzy123 »

mdorazio wrote: post #205
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…

I've also interviewed many consultants over the years. It strongly depends on what you are interviewing them for . If you want people with deep industry expertise and a strong fit for a fairly narrow role, then yes of course the consulting kids are going to suck. If you want people who can learn quickly and look more broadly than a specific department to do things like strategic or financial planning then consultants…

These kinds of consultants have the same issue as LLMs: they say the maximally plausible thing without knowing (or necessarily caring) if what they are saying is actually true.

I don't think strategy advice is worth much unless it's coming from people who stuck around and lived with the consequences (i.e, tested their ideas against reality).

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

#252

Post by badpun »

mattkevan wrote: post #198
badpun wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How would they know that though? It's a huge personal risk that can be alleviated simply by investing in anything else in the world besides US companies.

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

#253

Post by bdangubic »

Retric wrote: post #245
bdangubic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this all makes sense of course, I am not forced to stay at the FBI. however, I just might: - love what I do and love the team I am on a my mission. - have a career at fbi, not a “job” I am willing to change like underwear - be gs-15 few years away from retirement/pension/… you can technically say this is a “free” country and all that but it is just semantics

You don’t lose a pension when you quit, you simply qualify for fewer years served. A career extends beyond a job means that you can transition to something related outside the FBI. If there some aspect of a job you dislike then quit.

we can go glass-half-full-glass-half-empty back and forth ad nausem here for sure :)

bottom line though, the then government (which is soon to be now government) went full ballistic on us during COVID times and vaccine mandates affected many lives

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

#254

Post by jgtrosh »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #242
jgtrosh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to other comments, this can also be partly justified by the fact that blue collar crime is the only kind of crime for which prevalence is even partly inversely correlated with the increase in severity in punishment.

> blue collar crime I never saw this term before. Do you mean all crime except white collar crime?

I meant white collar crime

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

#255

Post by gruez »

ryandrake wrote: post #244
RicoElectrico wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, if anyone is shocked at what happened to that insurance CEO, there is a reason. Elites never face personal consequences beyond fines, maybe expect when they defraud investors.

And in this case, as is almost always the case, the "elites" are not even paying the fine. The Company is. No human being inside the company who made any of the relevant decisions and did any of the wrongdoing will suffer in any way, or have to pay anything. If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people.

>If you want to kill people and get away with it, just form a corporation and have your CxO and SVP staff make decisions that kill people.

Note this only works for indirect deaths. If you form a corporation and then order a hit on someone, that's still illegal and you'll still go to jail. If you form a corporation, build a coal power plant that follows all regulations, and the particulate pollution sends a few hundred people to their early deaths that's fine.

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

#256

Post by gruez »

sc68cal wrote: post #17

McKinsey makes something like 10 billion annually in revenue. This is a slap on the wrist. People need to be held accountable for these misdeeds.

This line of thinking makes no sense. Why should we care about what their global revenue is? The only thing that matters is how much money they made from opioid consulting. If Amazon did a bad in a small part of their company (eg. they violated labor laws in the state of Washington), why should their punishment be compared to their global revenue?

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

#257

Post by gruez »

sumedh wrote: post #194
badpun wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You want to make it worse?

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

#258

Post by Retric »

bdangubic wrote: post #253
Retric wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t lose a pension when you quit, you simply qualify for fewer years served. A career extends beyond a job means that you can transition to something related outside the FBI. If there some aspect of a job you dislike then quit.

we can go glass-half-full-glass-half-empty back and forth ad nausem here for sure :) bottom line though, the then government (which is soon to be now government) went full ballistic on us during COVID times and vaccine mandates affected many lives

Only some parts of the government “required” their employees to get vaccinated, the entire US government didn’t. Even those bits only hit ~98% compliance.

When you volunteer to work for someone you’re agreeing to do what they want or quit, that’s by definition a choice. When many private employers had the same requirements complaining about overreach by the government is misplaced, it’s at most overreach by employers.

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

#260

Post by kjkjadksj »

toyg wrote: post #162
oefrha wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rather live a long, happy and productive life dependent on cheap, legal opioids That’s BS. OxyContin addicts tend to experience withdrawal symptoms before the recommended 12 hours is up, they also develop tolerance, so they end up requiring larger and larger dosage with increasing frequency. You’re not going to sustainably live a long, happy and productive life even if you have a cheap, steady, relatively clean sup…

Isn't that the same for coffee, though?

You don’t nod off in a ball and lose circulation in your extremities on coffee.
Post reply on HN