QuantumChaos
Joined 12 years ago
Karma
130
Submissions
179
Member since
Mar 29
Recent submissions
Comment · 12 years ago
I found myself in a very similar situation. My solution was to get a job at a large company. It didn't help much with the making friends part, but I am happy now that I don't work alone. I would consider whether a startup is right for you at this time.
Comment · 12 years ago
I agree, it seemed like he was driving at the idea that we shouldn't dismiss the way women were acting as wrong, but instead try to see the advantages of their approach. Even though he didn't say it like this, I imagine his thought process was that being overly aggressive in negotiations creates ill-will and hurts you in the long run. Maybe there are men out there who constantly ask for raises and would be better off if they didn't.
>I hope men aren't discouraged by this.
90% of men are simply trying to avoid the entire issue as much as possible, because stuff like this happens all the time.
Comment · 12 years ago
Yes they do have a choice. Their choices are more limited because they live in a poorer country. On the American companies, didn't you said I hear some companies actually get work done this way and are very happy with it, growing continuously without worrying about who does the tech; Not saying you're 100% wrong on outsource being a safe option for managers, but you really did say that American companies were happy with outsourcing.
If you apply basic microeconomics to this situation, it is actually very simple. The company makes Indian workers better off, American workers worse off, and American companies better off.
Comment · 12 years ago
I don't really see the problem here. Indians are willing to work under these conditions, which honestly don't sound worse than the US. It sounds like even though they might shrink/grow teams at will, because the building has many teams, the risk for the individual is low. And you said that companies are happy with the work these teams do. So what is the problem?
Comment · 12 years ago
This is nonsense. Various funds available to ordinary people, including pension funds, do invest in the hedge funds and private equity funds. If anyone were actively buying businesses and replacing people with capital equipment, it would be these groups.
Comment · 12 years ago
I don't see how this rule helps me figure out the meaning of sama's actions. At least five people (including myself) in that thread interpreted his actions as indicating that mods would use tactics like this (presumably escalating) against people they perceived as trolls. However, I would be happy to hear that this was not the case, and this action was a random occurrence.
Without any clarification, I think that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on discussion. People will self-censor for fear of being subject to harassment, either by mods or other users.
Comment · 12 years ago
I never implied that sama's actions were doxing. I would however, like to a clear statement from mods regarding actual doxing, whether by them or other users.
Comment · 12 years ago
How is Can we have a publication named "The Forgotten Male Programmers Who Created Modern Tech" now?" harassment?
Seems like providing personal information of an individual who thought they were anonymous, and merely expressed an opinion, is more like harassment.
Comment · 12 years ago
Well everyone here is as anonymous as they choose to be, apart from being outed by mods. Given that mods can ban any person with a click, I don't see any excuse for them punishing people by selectively providing their personal information.
The original post was >Can we have a publication named "The Forgotten Male Programmers Who Created Modern Tech" now?
Is this really the sort of thing that warrants violating a persons privacy over? If we are going to use "name and shame" surely it should be for things that are manifestly abusive, not expressing an opinion.
Comment · 12 years ago
>At a base level, as you can see in a lot of the replies, it comes down to "people believe that if they've been somewhere long enough, they now have a right to stay there as long as they like, and anything else is harsh and mean".
>Even if i thought this was right, I doubt you can find an economic model that allows this to happen, and can survive long term (and as evidence i offer that, in the history of civilization, nobody has accomplished this).
Insurance against changes in housing prices might let people avoid the effects of gentrification much longer. Imagine a bond that pays the difference between the current average rental rate and some "strike price" $X (when this difference is positive).
Comment · 12 years ago
Have to disagree with you there. Educated people tend to be well informed and hold sensible opinions on global warming, vaccination, and education (and often hold silly opinions on nutrition, even though there is a very strong incentive). Economics is unique as something where people disdain the mainstream.
One notable difference (you can see it in this thread) is that people assume economists are somehow different from other academics. That academics in general can be trusted, but economists are sellouts. What they miss is that there is no significant difference between Economics as a field, and other fields. They get paid slightly more, but otherwise the journals, professional organizations, tenure committees, etc. are exactly the same. There is literally no point where the capitalist comes along with bags of money for his obedient intellectual servants.
The real reason people don't accept the mainstream is that it is very dismal. It says that your revealed preference proves that you value a cup of coffee in every morning over the life of an African (since you could donate that money to life saving charities). It says that inequality can't be fully ironed out because some people are more productive than others. It says that there is no way to shuffle around interest rates, bank accounts, etc. and make everyone better off. It says that there is no easy way to make the world better, because the free market has already maxed out the easy gains.
Personally, I think that the best way to encourage people to be more open to the mainstream, is to tell the other side of the store. Economics is also uplifting. It says that when you work for a company, you are creating value, and that that value can and does help people other than yourself (through the tax system). I also believe that tech has very large positive externalities (especially once you understand that taking people's jobs isn't an externality). Finally, it enables people to embrace the positive, self-affirming aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy, without going to extremes. I do feel guilty that I don't do more for the people who are worst off. But at least I can enjoy my money, and my life, without feeling guilty that I'm driving some artist out of the current trendy area.
Comment · 12 years ago
The argument was that people should move to a cheaper city if being a Facebook bus driver can't support them.
But that doesn't imply that Facebook is forcing people to move cities. Facebook isn't altering the labor market by employing drivers at market rates.
I hope you'll agree that the frictions from moving arise from changes in cost of living (or in the labor market, which doesn't appear to be changing). If the change in the housing market is gradual enough, the frictions need not be very significant, since they are amortized over a longer period of time.
Comment · 12 years ago
Labor markets are inefficient, that's the primary reason the field of "Labor Econoimcs" exists.
However, these inefficiencies do not explain why Facebook bus drivers make so little. Classical economics is sufficient for that.
You cannot simply point to frictions as a get-out-of-jail-free card from classical economics.
Comment · 12 years ago
I think that when people argue against unions, they are usually implicitly arguing against the moral duty of the company to concede to the unions demands, or to allow the union to form (assuming they could legally prevent the union from forming). They are not arguing against the right of the union to try to achieve better wages or conditions, or arguing it is immoral to do so.
It is quite easy to be a principled proponent of free markets, no matter who they benefit in a particular instance. It is quite a stretch to say that anyone who claims to adhere to this principle is really an agent of the capitalists.