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

261–270 of 324 posts

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

#261

Post by kjkjadksj »

emseetech wrote: post #81
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…

Legalization was popular for weed because weed is relatively benign but decriminalization is what's needed for harder drugs. People get these mixed up and use them interchangeably but they're very different. There will (and should) never be heroin shops that look like Apple stores like there are for weed. Decrim can be for production, distribution and possession but people generally use it to mean possession. That me…

Hard drugs are already effectively decriminalized in CA. When I see cops literally turn the other way to not have to see someone smoke a rock and have to write them a ticket thats how you know. I can’t say that this policy has lead to anyone getting help. If anything it enables people to slip further into the abyss once they come here from places that would otherwise prosecute that behavior when its done in public in the open like that.

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

#262

Post by remarkEon »

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…

>and look more broadly than a specific department to do things like strategic or financial planning then consultants can be a good fit.

I disagree with this, but I definitely understand your argument. I just don't see how someone who oscillates back and forth from various clients, even if they're all in the same industry, can get enough deep background to be able to coherently make recommendations about business strategy.

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

#263

Post by kjkjadksj »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #77
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…

I'm not sure most people are against going after the suppliers, even if they support decriminalization. Decriminalization should mean that users are not prosecuted for simply using drugs, but those participating in the manufacture and distribution are still held responsible.

Decriminalization still means you get prosecuted for using in public. You can’t smoke weed in public or even a cigarette in most public places nor are you allowed to drink in public. Shooting dope in a park will still be illegal.

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

#264

Post by kjkjadksj »

gruez wrote: post #256
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?

Because otherwise someone clever could play a shell game where every org does something bad but its split up in such a way to diffuse responsibility across the organization and minimize fines, especially since not all bad things will be caught and fined simultaneously.

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

#265

Post by kjkjadksj »

Sabinus wrote: post #132
genocidicbunny wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, until a good looking 20-something year old man puts a couple bullets in your chest outside an investor meeting.

But then someone has to sacrifice their life to create some justice. Much better for it to be a part of the system. Jail for criminal executives.

As killings get normalized they will be more difficult to be caught. Less point blank pistoling, more IEDs and long range rifles is our future imo. The veil has been pierced for at least some people.

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

#266

Post by [deleted] »

jfengel wrote: post #233
jncfhnb wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It varies tremendously. Imo the people who have sweatshop experiences bring it upon themselves mostly.

I've always been unclear on this. Various careers are famed for extremely long hours, but I don't know just what it is they do for all that time. Consultants, financeers, etc. I know that I have only so much brain power to spend a day. I can work longer, but at best you're going to get more grind, not quality. I keep wondering if these consultants could accomplish as much in fewer hours if they weren't so intent on b…

[deleted]

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

#267

Post by bdangubic »

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” 98% compliance should tell you all you need to know whether people are “forced” or not… the prospect of losing your job might not be that alarming for HN-average-person but…

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

#268

Post by bdangubic »

shuckles wrote: post #222
bdangubic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to hear this. I would have gone full Luigi on someone if this happened to me

Since when were casual references to murdering people acceptable on here?

if you are responsible for the death of my Mum you may have to suffer some consequences…

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

#269

Post by cruffle_duffle »

nkrisc wrote: post #199
zmgsabst wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Viruses are not concerned with ethics and morals.

Good thing we aren’t viruses and have intelligence and the ability to step back and think through our actions.

There is more to life than exactly one specific myopic focus on a virus. It takes an incredible amount of privilege to believe that the only problem humans can solve for is an exactly one single virus to the exclusion of literally everything else. Massive, massive amounts of privilege to think that way, in fact.

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

#270

Post by dxbydt »

grues-dinner wrote: post #201
fakedang wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lot of ppl on the left mad at billionaires too Seems the left were always in favor of Luigi. I'm more surprised by the right in the US. The days just after the shooting, they were all in favor too, but after their media pundits took an opposing stance, they joined the bandwagon and are now ranting about "muh poor CEO". Bunch of sheep I suppose.

The period when people have their own reactions, followed by a sudden reset and synchronisation once the taking points get assembled and is really quite fascinating. I would really love to know how centralised the process of defining talking points is, or if it is, itself, emergent behaviour of a distributed system resulting in coherent outcomes.

what an amazing turn of phrase - “reset and synchronization once the talking points get assembled” Literally describes 99 of the 100 post-jira action items coming out of the clueless PM’s mouthhole.
Post reply on HN