In response to comment by Louie on Optimal Employment
Comment author: dmm 01 February 2011 04:17:50PM 4 points [-]

Most American economists would probably say that this is impossible and would inevitably cause wide-spread unemployment

Actually most economists from all over the world would agree that minimum wages do not improve economic conditions. The consensus is that a minimum wage has one of two effects: either it does nothing, because the actual minimum wage determined by the markets are higher, or if the minimum wage determined by the market is lower, it prevents job creation.

Your account in this article suggests that the former situation is the case in Australia now, because you said the minimum wage is $15 but a more typical starting wage is >$18. This was the case too in the US for a long time. When I started working the minimum wage was $5.55 but I started as a fast-food worker at $5.95. The minimum wage was doing nothing.

However, none of this detracts from the excellent opportunities available in Australia.

In response to comment by dmm on Optimal Employment
Comment author: Abisashi 01 February 2011 04:54:49PM 2 points [-]

Employment is a transaction, where the employer is willing to pay up to X and the employee willing to work for no less than Y. For jobs where the minimum wage is greater than X it kills the job, but when it is less than X but more than Y it can force more of the surplus from the employment transaction to go to the employee. Obviously it's hard to set the right minimum wage for all jobs in a large economy.

Also, it's my understanding that people working above but near the minimum wage usually get raises when the minimum wage goes up; the minimum wage communicates something about what a worker is supposed to be worth, and telling your employees they are the bottom of the barrel is probably bad for morale, and thus, productivity. So the minimum wage can affect wages even if they aren't at the minimum wage.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 January 2011 12:02:28PM *  16 points [-]

Actually, “pretending to be sexy,” aka projecting confidence, social dominance, good looks, etc., doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I know a lot of PUA focuses on stuff like that, and I think that’s great; I’ve seen it have a positive influence on friends of mine, and vastly improve their lives, without compromising their ethics. I think this sort of training falls under "self-improvement," and I think it's an unalloyed good thing, and from what I can tell, this is exactly what you've been teaching and promoting.

I’m bothered by what I think of as “compliance tricks,” which I’ve also seen recommended in a PUA context.

That is, when you get someone to do things that she doesn’t want or like, using commitment effects and manipulating her own guilt, awkwardness, and desire to please. Or playing on her insecurities so she doesn't feel she deserves to refuse. I’ve been on the receiving end of a mild version of this: it’s possible to make me do things that are bad for me just by being “dominating” and making me feel too awkward to refuse a favor. This is similar to the Milgram Experiment. People can be remarkably unwilling to say “No” to someone who expects to be obeyed, and people can be willing to harm others or themselves just to avoid a reprimand, a stern look, or social awkwardness.

A man who understands this can get sex just by using compliance tricks (especially if he uses them on an especially timid or docile woman.) He doesn’t necessarily have to be cool or charming – he can be unattractive and creepy – but he can make a woman feel bad about saying “No” very effectively if he’s good at psychology, and he can make her life worse. I think this is why there’s a lot of feminist talk about “No means no” and consent and so on – because women are socialized to try to please people and go along with others’ desires, and can be put in harmful situations by people who take advantage of their reluctance to give a direct “No.”

Maybe that in itself isn’t a crime; maybe unfulfilling, not-quite-desired sex isn’t the worst thing in the world; but as a general rule, I think compliance tricks are pretty disturbing. People have permitted genocide and tyranny -- and, less dramatically, ruined their own lives -- because they were too awkward or meek to say “No,” and someone took advantage of their meekness. The victim of a compliance trick bears responsibility for his/her weakness, but the instigator of a compliance trick is still doing wrong, in my opinion.

Comment author: Abisashi 25 January 2011 08:37:57PM *  4 points [-]

I think the term feminists use that you are looking for is "enthusiastic consent"; for the reasons you describe, "no means no" may be too limited of a standard at times for ensuring ethical sex.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 January 2011 04:43:46PM 1 point [-]

Actually, the quote does beg the question... the connotations of "even" presuppose certain answers to the question of what venues like LW are for.

Comment author: Abisashi 25 January 2011 04:50:17PM 0 points [-]

You are right. It's strange to see "begs the question" used properly for a change, I couldn't puzzle it out when I read it before.

Comment author: R3dpill 25 January 2011 02:21:06PM -1 points [-]

"even venues like LW are appalled at the idea that these aspects of human life -- which are in our society treated with an extreme level of both idealization and ideologization -- can be analyzed in such an undignified and desecrating but nevertheless correct way."

which begs the question: what is LW for if not for being rational and confronting the truth?

Comment author: Abisashi 25 January 2011 04:36:51PM 0 points [-]

Do you mean "raises the question?"

Comment author: pjeby 07 January 2011 08:35:58PM 0 points [-]

A vast majority of games in all team sports, for instance, probably end in one team failing to do a possible thing they thought they could do.

Point one: I think you and he are using different definitions of "possible".

Point two: "Win the game" is not a well-specified outcome in hypnosis or NLP, since it relies upon matters outside your control.

Comment author: Abisashi 07 January 2011 08:57:26PM 1 point [-]

What do you think the different definitions of possible they are using are?

Comment author: beriukay 02 December 2010 10:44:37AM 0 points [-]

Wow, I didn't even notice all the other ones. Nice catch. One counter-example to consider is in the first paragraph:

However, if both defect, then they'll both receive higher sentences than if neither of them confessed.

I added the formatting for italics back in, since it didn't survive transcription. Is there any way to view your comment before posting? I'm always kinda nervous to submit without an opportunity to see what I wrote as the world sees it.

Comment author: Abisashi 02 December 2010 08:53:28PM *  0 points [-]

I don't know of a way to preview comments, but each comment has an "edit" button if you made a mistake.

For the italics I'll do a test in this comment.

Edit: I didn't lose my spaces, but comments might work differently than articles.

Comment author: beriukay 01 December 2010 11:53:17AM 1 point [-]

First, I'm trying to put some of this advice into immediate practice. I think there are many excellent points in this piece. I have found that in my experience, I am best at not accidentally defecting when I am not emotionally involved in the topic, and that asking myself "What am I doing here?" has saved me tons of time and effort. I still sometimes relish battling the masses of the Just Plain Wrong, but more often I find it wearying.

People matter, and people's feelings matter,especiallyif they have sway over your life, but even if they don't have sway over your life.

I wanted to point out that the last bit is especially true because there are many who judge a person based on how they treat those who have no sway over your life, and this is one reason why I strive to be polite to waiters/waitresses/janitors/etc. I would also like to point out that I think your keyboard stuck on the 'especiallyif.'

The suggestions at the end are pretty good. I was surprised about how many of those habits I have picked up, dropped, and relearned over the years.

Comment author: Abisashi 01 December 2010 10:18:47PM 0 points [-]

It actually looks to me like every time the article has italics start or end, a space is missing. Is there an issue with how the site deals with italic tags? I'm viewing this on Chrome in Windows 7.

Comment author: Abisashi 17 May 2010 09:17:11PM 2 points [-]

I got 11 (there's nowhere to report this on the poll; I selected '10 or less', as that seemed like where the missing 11 should go based on how the numbers are grouped).

I'm a utilitarian. Before taking the test, I figured I'd get something in the 16-20 range.

Comment author: Abisashi 26 April 2010 05:11:43PM *  4 points [-]

I've been lurking here for six months or so; I think I got here from Overcoming Bias through a link from Marginal Revolution. I try not to come here more than once a week because I end up spending too much time here due to the extensive interlinking.

View more: Next