In response to comment by Hul-Gil on Optimal Employment
Comment author: Barry_Cotter 24 May 2011 01:09:33PM 3 points [-]

Citizenship has no bearing on admission decsisions to German universities, and fees are at most, €500 per semester. You also get heavily subsidised tickets on public transport, and if you can get it the student accomodation is cheap as well. And native English speakers can make a bit of money to a reasonable living teaching English, while studying.

German Academic Exchange Service

Comment author: Hul-Gil 25 May 2011 02:19:57AM 0 points [-]

Awesome! Thank you for this. The incredible expense of American universities could quite possibly ruin my life... I'm now seriously considering attempting to transfer to a German one.

In response to Optimal Employment
Comment author: Petro 01 February 2011 01:26:34PM 38 points [-]

Given that I'm an American currently living (and working) in the Outback, well there's some flaws in your argument.

There is a lot of employment opportunities here (Alice) because LOTS of people leave after a couple years here. They do that for a reason.

There are basically two economic drivers in this area--tourism and The Base (I'm neither a gardener nor a cleaner, I'm a sprinkler head technician). The Base mostly brings in Americans with very high clearances to do gardening and cleaning, and spends a significant amount of money in Alice for related goods and services.

Tourism is largely due to it's proximity to Uluru/Ayers Rock, and, well, being the only sizable "city" for, well, Darwin is about 1500k north of here, and Adelaide 1500k south.

Alice is a town of about 26k residents. Small town. Very small.

EVERYTHING here, except (oddly enough) pecans, is more expensive than I was paying back in St. Louis MO.

Gas is something like 1.30 a liter. A case of Strongbow is ~50 AUD. A 700ml of Makers Mark is about 40 AUD. Some of the costs are hard to map because GST is 10% and included you don't notice it, you just see it's more expensive, so you really have to keep that in mind.

Meat and vegetables are a tad more expensive than back in the states after accounting for GST. Salmon is a LOT more expensive.

McDonalds is WAY more expensive, but no one here would admit to eating that kind of stuff, right? (3 year old. Playground. And yes, a cheese burger and some fries occasionally is tasty).

So from personal experience I'm calling BS on your food calculations. Also the Department of State claims that (if I read this table right) that Alice is %50 more expensive than living in DC. http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/cola.asp explanation here: http://aoprals.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=245&menu_id=74

Also, you like Amazon? Guess how much of it they won't even ship to an APO, much less overseas.

This is what housing looks like in Alice: http://tinyurl.com/4qvnlvx

The houses here are nice, but utilities are purportedly MUCH higher here than in the states (because of my contract my employer provides my housing and pays my utilities, but I have to pay tax on the imputed income, which allegedly is about as much as I'd pay for utils + rent in the US. I haven't gotten that bill yet, so it's just hearsay so far). Here are the tarriffs for utilities: http://www.powerwater.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1582/2010-2011_Tariff_brochure_-_July_2010_web.pdf

Oh, and it gets fookin HOT here. Really hot. As in 40/105 is not all that remarkable. Then there are the bugs and spiders. Redbacks, Golden-Orbs. 3 inch cockroaches.

There is a LOT of property crime here, and an above average level of violent crime for the size of the town. Some people have been blaming it on "the kids" being out of school (the school year here lines up with the calendar, so December & January are mostly summer break). Many of the Ozzies I work with blame a lot of it on the Indigenous population which (at least many of them who live/sleep in town) has a large problem with substance abuse and the constellation of problems that accompany that. Certainly many of the women here are afraid to be "downtown" alone after dark (Remember, this is a town of 26k, so "downtown" is where the restaurants, bars, and hotels are.

Oh, and if you need medical care there is a local hospital, but if you need surgery you're most likely going to be evac'd to Adelaide. 1500 kilometers south.

I've only been here a short while (2 months), and if you like a certain (relatively slow) pace of life, things here aren't bad. There are a LOT of American's here (mostly working at The Base) who love it. There's a lot of (desert) hiking and camping, you can get old Toyota Land Cruisers cheap if that's your thing, there is "mountain biking", and various sports etc. Recreation seems to be having barbecues (yes, it's cliche. It is also, near as I can tell true) and going 4 wheeling in the bush.

Oh, and this is the Lesbian Capital of the Outback, and purportedly has more lesbians per-capita than anywhere in the world.

But to the OPs point, no, I don't think this is a good place to come to bank cash, and certainly not by coming to the middle of nowhere and working in a bar.

Now, if you have certain skills--either a degree, training or experience, and a top secret clearance, and want to come work as a Gardner, Cleaner, or electrician, then coming out here DOES make some sense. If we watch our money closely we'll be able to take a couple trips around the country and have enough left in the bank at the end of our contract that we can take our time finding our next place to work.

Of course, if you don't mind a little more stress, with those same qualifications you can get a job in Iraq or Afghanistan. If you're single you go over there and you can clear (after taxes) between 100 and 220k with only discretionary expenses. I did that for a year (with a family) and was able to pay off all debts and take about 8 months off, and still had enough when I got here (to Alice) to pay cash for a late model car and have some cushion in the bank.

I've never been all that worried about making a lot of money. It would be nice to be independently wealthy, but it's also a lot of focus and effort that (IMO) could go into better things.

I didn't come here to bank a LOT of cash. I could make more or less the same amount of money (everything accounted for) back in the US, but my wife and I wanted to live outside the country for a while, and this seemed like a good opportunity. We weren't tied to where we were living, we didn't have jobs, family will (almost) always be there when you get back.

There are a lot of benefits to living overseas for longer periods of time--if you're just there on vacation/holiday it's easy to keep your rose colored glasses on the whole time, but if you're there for 2 years, and you have to live "on the local economy" you see things done differently than we do them in the US. Some of these methods are better, and some are worse (for example in the US regulations require that auto makers direct a certain percentage of the headlights up to illuminate overhead signs, which is light you can't use for distance or side. Here the beams are slightly different. IMO this is a better scheme. In the US your shopping car as 2 moveable and 2 fixed wheels. There they have 4 movable. This can be a problem on slopped sidewalks.)

In response to comment by Petro on Optimal Employment
Comment author: Hul-Gil 24 May 2011 04:43:22AM 4 points [-]

So if I obtain high security clearances (how?), and have experience as a gardener or janitor or some such job... I can clear $100K/year by working at U.S. bases in Afghanistan?!

In response to Optimal Employment
Comment author: jasticE 03 February 2011 01:15:44PM 3 points [-]

I find your basic proposal sympathetic, since I have more or less been following the idea of optimal employment myself, but with different preferences. In that light, I find your advice highly specific, which is very useful for people with similar preferences, but less interesting for others like me.

To add my current personal choice to the mix: Here in Germany the cost of being enrolled at university is relatively low: from 50-500€ / semester, depending on federal state and university. On the other hand, you get the benefit of being able to work as "Werkstudent", where you pay only a flat amount of social security, which is usually the largest deduction from income. I work as a programmer on that basis, and have very flexible working hours, and lots of free time to pursue academic interests, and enough money to pay my bills. If I want or need extra money, I can choose to work more. I think this is a good choice if you like to live in an urban environment, especially since most German cities have a good public transport system and biking everywhere is reasonable.

In response to comment by jasticE on Optimal Employment
Comment author: Hul-Gil 24 May 2011 04:37:51AM *  1 point [-]

Do you know anything about Germany's policy on American students attending German universities? I support it would vary depending on the university - but do you know if it's financially feasible? Or are the prices jacked up for foreigners?

Ich liebe Deutsch, und spreche ein bisschen. Ich wollte schon immer zu gehen nach Deutschland. :-)

Comment author: Hul-Gil 23 May 2011 02:01:31AM 1 point [-]

This is a cool article and it made me think, so this is just a minor nitpick: I know "quantum leap" is commonly used to mean a large jump, but wouldn't that be a very tiny jump, if "quantum" is used in its usual (correct) sense?

Comment author: hegemonicon 14 March 2009 06:32:31PM *  6 points [-]

The problem with the 'god shaped hole' situation (and questions of happiness in general) is that if something doesn't make you happy NOW, it becomes very difficult to believe that it will make you happy LATER.

For example, say some Soma-drug was invented that, once taken, would make you blissfully happy for the rest of your life. Would you take it? Our immediate reaction is to say 'no', probably because we don't like the idea of 'fake', chemically-induced happiness. In other words, because the idea doesn't make us happy now, we don't really believe it will make us happy later.

Valuing truth seems like just another way of saying truth makes you happy. Because filling the god shaped hole means not valuing truth, the idea doesn't make you happy right now, so you don't really believe it will make you happy later.

Comment author: Hul-Gil 21 May 2011 08:32:15AM 2 points [-]

I would definitely take the Soma, and don't see why anyone wouldn't. Odd, the differences between what people find acceptable.

Is anyone else with me in desiring chemically-induced happiness as much as any other? (Well, all happiness is chemically-induced, when you get right down to it, so I assume there are no qualitative differences.)

Comment author: J_Thomas2 08 December 2007 08:55:00AM 0 points [-]

The Resistance pinned down occupation troops that otherwise would have been available to fight opposing armies.

Anyway, it's different committing violence against people who kill you if they catch you disobeying them, versus committing violence against people who are only presenting a verbal argument. Some of us take the moral stand that it's wrong to hurt people just for what they say, while others of us figure that the practical thing is to stop bad stuff at whatever stage is most effective.

_About violence and society. What do we define by violence? Do we also define intrusion in our personal sphere, psychological re-programming, etc. as violent activities?_

Gutzperson, if by "intrusion into our personal sphere" you mean saying things in our presence we don't want to hear, I'd have to say that isn't violence. If it means breaking down our doors and pointing guns at us, that comes a lot closer.

Similarly for psychological reprogramming. If it involves coercion where you give people intense negative reinforcement -- electric shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation, etc -- then that pretty much includes violence. If it's just telling them things they aren't psychologically ready to handle, I tend to think not although it's maybe a gray area. People ought to be ready to handle anything anybody says to them. But sometimes they aren't. Do we have a responsibility to respect other people's fragile mental stability by never saying anything that might unsettle them?

Comment author: Hul-Gil 21 May 2011 02:35:17AM 0 points [-]

while others of us figure that the practical thing is to stop bad stuff at whatever stage is most effective.

You're only stopping bad stuff if it's something like a threat - in other words, a declaration of intent. I can't imagine thinking it is appropriate to "sock" somebody for a dissenting opinion. Surely this is how the Inquisition, or Stalin's U.S.S.R, was justified.

I guess you wouldn't complain if I hit you for expressing these opinions.

(Woo, necromancy!)

Comment author: The_Lucifer_Principle 17 November 2007 09:15:18AM 2 points [-]

Imagine a "Frodo gene" that sacrifices its vehicle to save its entire species from an extinction event. What happens to the allele frequency as a result? It goes down. Kthxbye.

But if 1 sacrifice ensures the survival of the offspring, then the genes that made the creature commit suicide would have still "won".

Suicide is not even required, just extreme dedication - putting your life on the line. Think motherhood - a mother bear will willingly fight to the death with a bear far bigger than her in order to protect her cubs. Sometimes this leads to her getting killed, but more than often it leads to the survival of the cubs.

Another good example of this type of behaviour is the pecking order; certain individuals submit to the "authority" of others, giving up food, mating rights and fill their body with stress hormones that weaken the immune system.

Shouldn't have pecking orders evolved out of the species and leave us with macho males that never submit?

You seem to imply there's a contradiction between "the good of the species" and "the selfishness of the gene", but it seems you're not paying attention to the subtle ways in which selection works.

Comment author: Hul-Gil 20 May 2011 07:26:24PM 4 points [-]

But if 1 sacrifice ensures the survival of the offspring, then the genes that made the creature commit suicide would have still "won".

How so? They'd disappear. Unless the individual had already reproduced, as in your mother bear example - that's the difference. If Frodo did it to save his children, it might stay steady.

In response to comment by Hul-Gil on Circular Altruism
Comment author: Alicorn 16 May 2011 06:11:54AM *  0 points [-]

loss of utility per cent grows exponentially with each cent lost.

On this end of the scale, it grows (I'm not sure if it's exponential), but it doesn't grow indefinitely; eventually it starts falling.

In response to comment by Alicorn on Circular Altruism
Comment author: Hul-Gil 16 May 2011 06:51:28AM 0 points [-]

A good point. I've edited to rephrase.

Comment author: phob 04 January 2011 05:55:15PM *  2 points [-]

So you wouldn't pay one cent to prevent 3^^^3 people from getting a dust speck in their eye?

In response to comment by phob on Circular Altruism
Comment author: Hul-Gil 16 May 2011 06:33:11AM *  4 points [-]

Sure. My loss of utility from losing the cent might be less than the gain in utility for those people to not get dust specks - but these are both what Ben might consider trivial events; it doesn't address the problem Ben Jones has with the assumption of a continuous scale. I'm not sure I'd pay $100 for any amount of people to not get specks in their eyes, because now we may have made the jump to a non-trivial cost for the addition of trivial payoffs.

In response to Circular Altruism
Comment author: Hul-Gil 16 May 2011 06:10:05AM *  2 points [-]

What's worse, stealing one cent each from 5,000,000 people, or stealing $49,999 from one person? (Let us further assume that money has some utility value.)

If we decide we can just add the diminished wealth together, the former is clearly one cent worse: $50,000 is stolen, as opposed to $49,999. But this doesn't take into account that loss of utility grows with each cent lost from the same person. Losing one cent won't bother me at all; everyone else who had a cent stolen would probably feel the same way. However, $49,999 from one person is enough to ruin their life: numerically, less was stolen overall, but the utility loss grows incredibly as it is concentrated.

Another case: is an eye-mote a second for a year (31,556,926 motes) in one person better than 31,556,927 motes spread out evenly among 31,556,927 people? The former case would involve serious loss of utilons, whereas a single mote is quickly fixed and forgotten: qualitatively different from constant irritation. The loss of utilons from dust motes can thus be concentrated and added, but not spread out and then added. (I think this may indicate time and memory plays a factor in this, since they do in the mechanism of suffering.)

In other words, a negligible amount of utility loss cannot be multiplied so that it is preferable to a concentrated, non-negligible utility loss. If none of the people involved in the negligible-group suffer individually, they obviously can't be suffering as a group, either (what would be suffering - a group is not an entity!).

However, I have read refutations of this that say "well just replace dust specks with something that does cause suffering." I have no problem with that; there may be "non-trivial" pain and "non-trivial" pleasure that can be added. So in the stubbed-toes example, it might be non-trivial, since it is concentrated enough to matter to the individual and cause suffering; and suffering is additive.

Perhaps there is such a line innately built into human biology, between "trivial" and "non-trivial". Eye-motes can't ever really degrade the quality of our lives, so cannot be used in examples of this kind. But in the case of one person being tortured slightly worse than ten people being tortured slightly less, the non-trivial suffering of the ten can be considered to be additive. This also solves this problem.

View more: Prev | Next