5 ms·

I've always been puzzled by this; Nobody seems to care about Joe average. Even worse is that saying that you are "disrupting" Joe average's world / life is rega

I've always been puzzled by this; Nobody seems to care about Joe average. Even worse is that saying that you are "disrupting" Joe average's world / life is regarded as a good thing. All these ideas to disrupt all seem to have in common that they are a race to the bottom for average Joe. While some markets need to be torn open it's always done with a total disregard for the average Joe's who are caught in the crossfire and are paying the price for it.

golergka 8y ago
If someone can disrupt a market that Joe's working in and provide the same (or better) service cheaper, why on Earth does he have an obligation to think about said Joe? That just sounds like a Copenhagen principle of moral entanglement to me.
- angleofrepose 8y ago
  Because he's a person. Because she has problems. Because he has a family. Because that's my friend and uncle and neighbor. What on Earth do you mean "why do we have to care about them?" Because they're real. I get where you're coming from about the exasperatingly impossible web of moral obligations, but you can't give up.
  - aarpmcgee 8y ago
    This, a million times.
  - Chris_Chambers 8y ago
    why should anyone care about someone they don’t have a personal connection with?
  - golergka 8y ago
    > Because he's a person. Because she has problems. Because he has a family. That's just appeal to empathy - any human has it, until he's a sociopath, but like any other basic instinct, it's human nature to reign over it and not let it run your life. > Because he has a family. Because that's my friend and uncle and neighbor. Most likely he's not - there are very few people who I (or you) would actually call family and care about in the way you care about family. This Joe is most likely just an anonymous person that you don't know or care about. > I get where you're coming from about the exasperatingly impossible web of moral obligations, but you can't give up. I can't give up something that I didn't put on myself first.
- krapp 8y ago
  >If someone can disrupt a market that Joe's working in and provide the same (or better) service cheaper, why on Earth does he have an obligation to think about said Joe? Because the next wave of innovation might send them and their market out to sea.
  - belltaco 8y ago
    You can already see some of that attitude change on here when it comes to H1B visas and offshoring.
    - krapp 8y ago
      It will happen with automation too. We've just seen the first phase of the Industrial Revolution with the automating of physical labor, and the automation of mental labor is still in its infancy, but the obsolescence of the "knowledge worker" is coming.
  - golergka 8y ago
    Yes, it might indeed. But what's the actual causal connection here? Do you suppose that if the current disruptors go and create a socialist utopia for the current disrupted, the same welfare net will be there for them to fall upon, too? I don't find it very likely, to say the least.
- purplezooey 8y ago
  Ayn Rand is so 90s
- jsiepkes 8y ago
  If its cheaper because you found some way to circumvent labour laws and pit all the Joe average's against each other in a race to the bottom (like most of the "sharing economy" disruption does): Because it does not make the world a better place. I mean should my window cleaning really be 5 bucks cheaper if that means the guy/gal doing it is not insured if he/she falls of the ladder and can never work again? If you let people choose to take those kinds of risk there will always be some people doing it. Undercutting the people who don't want to take these risk but get forced because they need to be competitive. That's why we had those kind of labour laws in the first place. Because we thought while being allowed to compete everyone should have certain basic rights which should never be compromised.
  - samat 8y ago
    You also have this laws in part because there was a USSR. Average Joe could turn into communist if his life was too miserable.
  - golergka 8y ago
    > Because it does not make the world a better place. This is a very high level of abstraction. Making the world a better place is sometimes interesting and to me, and sometimes it's something that I (or you) would be completely indifferent to. Unless you're from a Coke commercial or a hippy commune, "making the world a better place" is not really what you're after. Now, how are all these things that you mentioned actually relevant to your or me?
    - jsiepkes 8y ago
      > Now, how are all these things that you mentioned actually relevant to your or me? Well that depends on the kind of person you are. To stay with my earlier example; I personally like the person who cleans my windows to not have to go live under a bridge if that person falls off the ladder and never being able to work again. All because my window cleaning had to be a bit cheaper. So if its relevant for you is a matter of personal taste.
- belltaco 8y ago
  Apply this logic to granting unlimited work visas (like H1Bs and green cards) for non-Americans and see how many of the same people with the same argument immediately change their tack.
  - golergka 8y ago
    I don't see it. In both cases, you've got "these people" (I guess you mean conservative americans, why didn't you say so, by the way) simply ask, how is it relevant to them and their self-interest. It's the same logic.

golergka 8y ago

If someone can disrupt a market that Joe's working in and provide the same (or better) service cheaper, why on Earth does he have an obligation to think about said Joe? That just sounds like a Copenhagen principle of moral entanglement to me.

angleofrepose 8y ago
Because he's a person. Because she has problems. Because he has a family. Because that's my friend and uncle and neighbor. What on Earth do you mean "why do we have to care about them?" Because they're real. I get where you're coming from about the exasperatingly impossible web of moral obligations, but you can't give up.
- aarpmcgee 8y ago
  This, a million times.
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  why should anyone care about someone they don’t have a personal connection with?
- golergka 8y ago
  > Because he's a person. Because she has problems. Because he has a family. That's just appeal to empathy - any human has it, until he's a sociopath, but like any other basic instinct, it's human nature to reign over it and not let it run your life. > Because he has a family. Because that's my friend and uncle and neighbor. Most likely he's not - there are very few people who I (or you) would actually call family and care about in the way you care about family. This Joe is most likely just an anonymous person that you don't know or care about. > I get where you're coming from about the exasperatingly impossible web of moral obligations, but you can't give up. I can't give up something that I didn't put on myself first.
krapp 8y ago
>If someone can disrupt a market that Joe's working in and provide the same (or better) service cheaper, why on Earth does he have an obligation to think about said Joe? Because the next wave of innovation might send them and their market out to sea.
- belltaco 8y ago
  You can already see some of that attitude change on here when it comes to H1B visas and offshoring.
  - krapp 8y ago
    It will happen with automation too. We've just seen the first phase of the Industrial Revolution with the automating of physical labor, and the automation of mental labor is still in its infancy, but the obsolescence of the "knowledge worker" is coming.
- golergka 8y ago
  Yes, it might indeed. But what's the actual causal connection here? Do you suppose that if the current disruptors go and create a socialist utopia for the current disrupted, the same welfare net will be there for them to fall upon, too? I don't find it very likely, to say the least.
purplezooey 8y ago
Ayn Rand is so 90s
jsiepkes 8y ago
If its cheaper because you found some way to circumvent labour laws and pit all the Joe average's against each other in a race to the bottom (like most of the "sharing economy" disruption does): Because it does not make the world a better place. I mean should my window cleaning really be 5 bucks cheaper if that means the guy/gal doing it is not insured if he/she falls of the ladder and can never work again? If you let people choose to take those kinds of risk there will always be some people doing it. Undercutting the people who don't want to take these risk but get forced because they need to be competitive. That's why we had those kind of labour laws in the first place. Because we thought while being allowed to compete everyone should have certain basic rights which should never be compromised.
- samat 8y ago
  You also have this laws in part because there was a USSR. Average Joe could turn into communist if his life was too miserable.
- golergka 8y ago
  > Because it does not make the world a better place. This is a very high level of abstraction. Making the world a better place is sometimes interesting and to me, and sometimes it's something that I (or you) would be completely indifferent to. Unless you're from a Coke commercial or a hippy commune, "making the world a better place" is not really what you're after. Now, how are all these things that you mentioned actually relevant to your or me?
  - jsiepkes 8y ago
    > Now, how are all these things that you mentioned actually relevant to your or me? Well that depends on the kind of person you are. To stay with my earlier example; I personally like the person who cleans my windows to not have to go live under a bridge if that person falls off the ladder and never being able to work again. All because my window cleaning had to be a bit cheaper. So if its relevant for you is a matter of personal taste.
belltaco 8y ago
Apply this logic to granting unlimited work visas (like H1Bs and green cards) for non-Americans and see how many of the same people with the same argument immediately change their tack.
- golergka 8y ago
  I don't see it. In both cases, you've got "these people" (I guess you mean conservative americans, why didn't you say so, by the way) simply ask, how is it relevant to them and their self-interest. It's the same logic.