= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomanDavis comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1742)
They weren't sold into slavery. If you don't like a job, hold out for something you like more. If there's no such job, and you don't step out of the labor market, you don't not like the job enough to complain: it really is an improvement on your life. Or, demand more money to make up for the amount you dislike your job. This seems to be what happened in porn.
There are so many worse problems in porn as a job than the fact that people might not feel artistically fulfilled in their job. Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women, especially if you are working on several jobs a day, as many actresses do, but they don't have to do that to survive, as it can pay from hundreds to thousands of dollars. They do that because it pays shit loads of money, and because they know that it's not a job they want to work into old age.
And even more so for men: lousy pay, boner drug injections, stiff (sorry) competition.
Are we talking about a separate world here, where the only form of employment is porn? If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn't be that competitive: they'd be doing something else.
Are you assuming perfect rationality on the part of the actors?
No, just imperfectly rational ones. Are you suggesting they were tricked into the job somehow?
My objection is more generic than that: I'm not making an argument about porn-actors' career choices one way or another, as I hardly have the required knowledge to do so.
I'm just finding your own arguments which seems to say that every career choice is a good career choice and that therefore people shouldn't complain rather unconvincing.
I'm not sure if I'd go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing, given that you stay in the job. If you dislike the job enough to either not take it or quit, then it wasn't.
If there are a lot of people competing for a job, assuming they actually want the job and aren't tricked by magic fairies, they must at least believe the job is going to be and improvement over their current employment.
Why is "nothing" the alternative to compare a given job to?
When people complain about a job, they generally don't say "I wish I was unemployed", they say things like "I wish I was paid more" or "I wish I wasn't forced to work as many hours for fear of losing my job" or "I wish I had better working conditions".
To compare any job to unemployment seems to be missing the point of such complaints. It's not that the people would prefer unemployment. They'd prefer a better job.
I'm comparing the job to the job not existing. Not to no job at all for an individual. We'd all prefer a better job for ourselves, and if we aren't jerks, we'd prefer better jobs for others too. Until the robots replace all the shitty jobs and all forms of scarcity vanish I don't see the point.
There are so many jobs on the labor market. If you have a job, then you must at least think it is better than the alternatives. How is this controversial?
Here's the discrepancy:
At this point, you're comparing two different versions of society, a society (A) where the job exists and a society (B) where the job doesn't exist.
But at this point, you're comparing two different choices for an individual within the same society (A), choosing to have the particular job (choice A1) or quitting (choice A2).
Those are two different questions. E.g. imagine that the porn industry didn't exist at all, for some magic reason. Wouldn't the customer money financing it go to some other form of entertainment or product? What makes you think that the additional jobs that industry would create wouldn't have less shitty working conditions than the porn industry?
The question of whether the existence of porn industry is positive or negative as a whole, therefore isn't the same to whether any given individual in it should quit or not. The choices person has in timeline B aren't necessarily the same they have in timeline A2.
That argument is only valid during times of full employment, of which this isn't one. There are people for whom the alternative to an unpleasant job with lousy pay would be having no way to earn a living at all. (Just making a general point; I'm not claiming this is likely to be the case for a male porn actor in particular.)
Really? Cause it seems like it'd be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I've been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
By “full employment” I mean ‘negligible unemployment rate’ (on a society level), not ‘working as many hours as you possibly could’ (on an individual level).
Why was this downvoted? AFAIK this usage is more-or-less standard.
I don't get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it's silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It's possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like "40ish hours a week" of work.
I don't know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn't exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn't much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it's enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Or, you keep working because it's the only way to survive you've found, even if you hate it. Not everyone has a wealthy family or something.
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn't say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn't exist, you'd be worse off.
Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I'm deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee's best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.
Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and other disasters), sometimes it's clearly a net loss (the Greek pension system is one of the things bankrupting the country), and sometimes it's hard to tell. But there's an actual tradeoff in consequences, and the optimal amount of regulation is not zero in all cases.
Related: The Non-Libertarian FAQ, or Why I Hate Your Freedom