3 ms·

"Ask yourself: Suppose you needed to hire someone to fix your lawn sprinklers, or hire an emply to work at your start up, or invest in a business. What role wou

"Ask yourself: Suppose you needed to hire someone to fix your lawn sprinklers, or hire an emply to work at your start up, or invest in a business. What role would personal connections and the trusted endorsements play?" I've always been curious why people like you feel the need to write comments like this. What is the gender neutral phrase for mansplaining, or mansplaining done to a mostly male audience? Do you really think we don't understand all the various reasons why the system is unfair? We can all easily point out why the system is unfair, without having to remind ourselves of how the unfairness of the system perpetuates itself. The question we need to answer is, how to make this system more fair? Because we can all easily think of a few ways the system could be made more fair, if the will existed to make it more fair.

paulddraper 8y ago
Apologies for the potentially patronizing explanation. Contrary to your comment though, I've found lots of people who put "decisions businesses/rich people make" and "decisions I make" on different planes. Example: A business looking to save money on their workforce is inherently Bad. But me looking to save every dollar I can on consumer goods is inherently Good (and different). I've found lots of people think in this "separate universes" mentality.
- sudosteph 8y ago
  Hopefully I'm not being too pedantic, as I do agree that saving money is not inherently good or bad based on the entity doing so, but the general concept that those in power should have a higher ethical standard for their actions than those without, is not without precedence. And it's not exclusively the domain of some sort of "separate universes"/cognitive dissonance type of thinking either. I'm thinking here of Plato's "Philosopher King" ideal. It seems reasonable for an average person to think that those who wield greater power (in this case, via money) have a greater obligation to consider the potential negative externalities associated with using that power. Now, whether or not that average person truly has the information and wisdom to tell if the decision being made was indeed the most ethical one is it's own matter of discussion, but holding the powerful to higher standards doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  An example st the front of my mind is that most of the people I know personally and most of the people who I come across online, are all too happy to decry car dealers for adding a markup (above MSRP) for desirable cars as greedy dirtbags. “I won’t pay a penny above MSRP” etc. Those same people are all too happy to pay a discounted (again, from MSRP) market price or shop around the entire country to find the best price. Perhaps more to the point, they are also all too happy to sell their house for the absolute most money they can get. Do as I say, not as I do, is all too common. (Of course car dealers are all dirty conniving greedy bastards, but not for asking market price for both high demand and high supply cars.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

paulddraper 8y ago

Apologies for the potentially patronizing explanation. Contrary to your comment though, I've found lots of people who put "decisions businesses/rich people make" and "decisions I make" on different planes. Example: A business looking to save money on their workforce is inherently Bad. But me looking to save every dollar I can on consumer goods is inherently Good (and different). I've found lots of people think in this "separate universes" mentality.

sudosteph 8y ago
Hopefully I'm not being too pedantic, as I do agree that saving money is not inherently good or bad based on the entity doing so, but the general concept that those in power should have a higher ethical standard for their actions than those without, is not without precedence. And it's not exclusively the domain of some sort of "separate universes"/cognitive dissonance type of thinking either. I'm thinking here of Plato's "Philosopher King" ideal. It seems reasonable for an average person to think that those who wield greater power (in this case, via money) have a greater obligation to consider the potential negative externalities associated with using that power. Now, whether or not that average person truly has the information and wisdom to tell if the decision being made was indeed the most ethical one is it's own matter of discussion, but holding the powerful to higher standards doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable.
jiveturkey 8y ago
An example st the front of my mind is that most of the people I know personally and most of the people who I come across online, are all too happy to decry car dealers for adding a markup (above MSRP) for desirable cars as greedy dirtbags. “I won’t pay a penny above MSRP” etc. Those same people are all too happy to pay a discounted (again, from MSRP) market price or shop around the entire country to find the best price. Perhaps more to the point, they are also all too happy to sell their house for the absolute most money they can get. Do as I say, not as I do, is all too common. (Of course car dealers are all dirty conniving greedy bastards, but not for asking market price for both high demand and high supply cars.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]