5 ms·

I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living. Maybe that's overly snarky, but to me something rings hollow a

by imgabe 7y ago

I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living. Maybe that's overly snarky, but to me something rings hollow about people sitting in a multi-million dollar loft in Manhattan pontificating about pronouns and privilege. Like, the privilege isn't all that bad, is it? I mean it's not like you're trying to give it up. You aren't renting a run-down office in Toledo so you can maximize the amount you're giving away. You aren't really looking to inconvenience yourself in any way, just trying to assuage some guilt. I guess it's better than spending it all on cocaine and hookers. Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? I don't think so.

lr4444lr 7y ago
Spending it on hookers would directly remunerate the "working class" though, no?
- dadarepublic 7y ago
  Your comment is a tad snarky and strays off topic within the snark... But for real, why not recognize sex work as a legitimate profession?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    As the recent Epstein revelations are proving, there is so much coercion and trafficking in sex work that deeming it a legitimate industry is not plausible.
    - MisterTea 7y ago
      This is right about the time where someone comes along and talks about how decriminalization and regulation will fix it.
    - dadarepublic 7y ago
      Isn't that an argument for recognizing sex work as a legitimate profession? Exploitation can happen in any number of professions up and down the value chain. It's one reason why we have corporate & labor law and why we don't have young children working in mines any longer.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        No? Your child labor example shows exactly why. At some point, the inherent tendency for a certain type of work to be exploitive means that the correct solution is to ban it entirely. We didn’t regulate child factory labor, we banned it. (Of course, we prosecute factory owners who use child labor, and not the children, but we could do that with sex work too.) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J189v02n03_03 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J189v02n03_03 > We interviewed 854 people currently or recently in prostitution in 9 countries (Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States, and Zambia), inquiring about current and lifetime history of sexual and physical violence. We found that prostitution was multitraumatic: 71% were physically assaulted in prostitution; 63% were raped; 89% of these respondents wanted to escape prostitution, but did not have other options for survival. A total of 75% had been homeless at some point in their lives; 68% met criteria for PTSD. Severity of PTSD symptoms was strongly associated with the number of different types of lifetime sexual and physical violence. Decriminalization doesn’t fix these problems. https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/ https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-... > Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. That’s why I bring up Epstein. Consider Stallman’s defense of Minsky: “she probably presented as willing.” What does the regulatory regime look like? Does requiring a license guarantee that women are willing, and not merely presenting as willing? Do inspectors come around and check that pimps aren’t physically abusing women or plying them with drugs? Legal prostitution gives cover to illegal prostitution. And it creates demand that can be satisfied by either legal or illegal prostitution, but where customers have no way to discern the difference.
  - lr4444lr 7y ago
    Because its financial viability as a mode of employment is largely rooted in social norms and social disapproval sufficiently blocking flood of competition. Outside of a few high priced call girls in an elite network, prostitution pays because we (collectively) look askance at it.
    - dadarepublic 7y ago
      You just said sex work pays because 'we' look cynically/suspiciously at it. Really? Sex work pays because people want a form of pleasure and are willing to pay for it. There is demand and some people are willing to provide supply. So I'll ask again, since you didn't really answer the question, why not recognize it as a legitimate profession?
      - kcolford 7y ago
        But if it was normalized then with an increase of supply there would be downward pressure on prices making it no longer an effective way to make a living. Although normalizing it is very different from decriminalizing and regulating.
      - lr4444lr 7y ago
        The other respondent summarized me correctly, but I'll also add, why do most aspiring "actors" or "models" have to moonlight as waiters if it's a simple matter of people paying for something pleasurable that people want? Because those jobs carry social prestige, and they're flooded with competition. Disgust, danger, and/or fear among the eligible applicant pool keeps enough competition out of prostitution to make it work.
        dadarepublic 7y ago
        Your comment "prostitution pays because we (collectively) look askance at it" Is directly equivalent to "sex work pays because 'we' look cynically/suspiciously at it" I summarized you correctly - you may not like what you said but my summarization was correct word for word. Comparing aspiring actors and models to sex work? This is a false equivalence. And your last sentence "disgust, danger, and/or fear" not only makes broad assumptions, but also reinforces what I commented earlier about corporate & labor law. And you still haven't really answered the question.
- imgabe 7y ago
  True. And drug dealers gotta eat too.
kcolford 7y ago
If your between 18 and 35, not all the wealth that you're able to enjoy the privilege of is under your control. Yes, someone can totally host a meeting in a large loft, but it doesn't necessarily mean the loft belongs to them and not their parents. Hell, even if it is their loft, it's not likely that it's being paid for out of the wealth they control, instead the parents pay for it. Also, holding on to a small fraction of wealth you got doesn't detract from the much larger fraction you've given away. Yeah, maybe they aren't suffering like average Joe is but when did it suddenly become mandatory for everyone to suffer? When did we start measuring how good our society is by how much everyone suffers? Going by the metric of making everyone live happy lives, they are doing pretty damn good. Investing the money only gets you back in the same position you were in before. Maybe you don't have the cash, but you sure do have the power. That's what these kids are trying to give up when they give away this money. That's the whole point of this organization.
- MisterTea 7y ago
  > Yeah, maybe they aren't suffering like average Joe is but when did it suddenly become mandatory for everyone to suffer? Working to earn a living is suffering? Where did the GP say anything about suffering?
  - kcolford 7y ago
    Maybe my choice of the word "suffering" was too strong, but an appropriate replacement escapes me right now. So I'll leave it as is.
cushychicken 7y ago
I also have a very hard time identifying with people so wealthy they don't need to work, talking about change in posh cafes and loft apartments. It seems like much talk, little action. What have they done? What effects have their donations had? That's what I'd love to know.
whack 7y ago
> I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living "In the meantime he works as a $115-an-hour SAT tutor for an agency." > Maybe that's overly snarky, but to me something rings hollow about people sitting in a multi-million dollar loft in Manhattan Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. Call me weird, but I think it's commendable that people are trying to find a middle ground instead of giving away absolutely everything. > Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? I don't think so Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Your overall tone appears to be very snarky and condescending towards people who haven't done anything to deserve it. It it motivated by envy? I can understand you not wanting to shower them with plaudits, but at least we could reserve judgement until they do something that's worthy of condescension.
- imgabe 7y ago
  > Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. I don't and I thought someone might bring this up. Let me explain. To me, Bill Gates is intellectually honest and consistent. He isn't apologizing for being rich. He doesn't believe it's wrong that he got rich. From my outside perspective he seems like he's just someone who likes to solve problems. He solved some problems that made him a lot of money. Now he wants to use that money to solve other problems. Ok. Fine. Contrast that to these kids. They are: 1. Saying that is bad and wrong that they have the money they have. They don't believe they should have it. 2. Continuing to hold on to the money they think it is wrong that they have. To me, that is intellectually dishonest. If I honestly believe that something I'm doing is fundamentally wrong, then I should stop doing that thing. I understand they probably can't dissolve their trust funds on their own. They could however choose to get a job and live off that income while directing 100% of their trust income to charity, while not living in a multi-million dollar loft they didn't pay for. Let me be clear, that's if they believe it's wrong. If they don't believe it's wrong, then they'd be acting consistently with their beliefs. It's not that I disagree with what they're doing, I'm bothered by the inconsistency between their words and their actions. > Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Eh, maybe not necessarily. If their trust is invested in a high-frequency trading fund that makes money by front-running trades, is that really a productive activity? Would it be better to make money in some rent-seeking activity and give it away or, for example, invest it in a steel mill where you accept reduced profits in favor of paying high wages and benefits? To me the latter helps people more and also produces steel, which is useful. (This is just an example, I'm not interested in a debate about the economics of running a steel mill in the US.)
abj 7y ago
If they're giving away money effectively because they're guilty that seems fine. While they could give away more if they sold that loft, the important thing is that they are giving away most of the trust. There needs to be a story they tell themselves where giving makes sense for them. If keeping the loft is part of that story, then it seems better to focus persuasion efforts on the people who aren't giving at all.
cryptica 7y ago
>> Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? TBH, I'd prefer it if they just spent the money on drugs and hookers rather than creating more useless jobs... We have too many of those already. Drugs are good. They're rat poison for the greedy. We should legalize drugs and make them stronger.
- kcolford 7y ago
  I want to downvote this so much but I don't have enough karma. So I'll just say that's not how drugs work. There are plenty of greedy people who's lives didn't get ruined by drugs. Furthermore, this is just an awful attitude to have towards people who struggle. They don't use drugs out of greed, they use them because they can't cope any other way.
  - cryptica 7y ago
    They are greedy for emotions which makes them greedy in general. They're not necessarily evil, but on average, such people take much more than they give and that's the problem.

by imgabe 7y ago

lr4444lr 7y ago

Spending it on hookers would directly remunerate the "working class" though, no?

dadarepublic 7y ago
Your comment is a tad snarky and strays off topic within the snark... But for real, why not recognize sex work as a legitimate profession?
- rayiner 7y ago
  As the recent Epstein revelations are proving, there is so much coercion and trafficking in sex work that deeming it a legitimate industry is not plausible.
  - MisterTea 7y ago
    This is right about the time where someone comes along and talks about how decriminalization and regulation will fix it.
  - dadarepublic 7y ago
    Isn't that an argument for recognizing sex work as a legitimate profession? Exploitation can happen in any number of professions up and down the value chain. It's one reason why we have corporate & labor law and why we don't have young children working in mines any longer.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      No? Your child labor example shows exactly why. At some point, the inherent tendency for a certain type of work to be exploitive means that the correct solution is to ban it entirely. We didn’t regulate child factory labor, we banned it. (Of course, we prosecute factory owners who use child labor, and not the children, but we could do that with sex work too.) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J189v02n03_03 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J189v02n03_03 > We interviewed 854 people currently or recently in prostitution in 9 countries (Canada, Colombia, Germany, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States, and Zambia), inquiring about current and lifetime history of sexual and physical violence. We found that prostitution was multitraumatic: 71% were physically assaulted in prostitution; 63% were raped; 89% of these respondents wanted to escape prostitution, but did not have other options for survival. A total of 75% had been homeless at some point in their lives; 68% met criteria for PTSD. Severity of PTSD symptoms was strongly associated with the number of different types of lifetime sexual and physical violence. Decriminalization doesn’t fix these problems. https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/ https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-... > Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. That’s why I bring up Epstein. Consider Stallman’s defense of Minsky: “she probably presented as willing.” What does the regulatory regime look like? Does requiring a license guarantee that women are willing, and not merely presenting as willing? Do inspectors come around and check that pimps aren’t physically abusing women or plying them with drugs? Legal prostitution gives cover to illegal prostitution. And it creates demand that can be satisfied by either legal or illegal prostitution, but where customers have no way to discern the difference.
- lr4444lr 7y ago
  Because its financial viability as a mode of employment is largely rooted in social norms and social disapproval sufficiently blocking flood of competition. Outside of a few high priced call girls in an elite network, prostitution pays because we (collectively) look askance at it.
  - dadarepublic 7y ago
    You just said sex work pays because 'we' look cynically/suspiciously at it. Really? Sex work pays because people want a form of pleasure and are willing to pay for it. There is demand and some people are willing to provide supply. So I'll ask again, since you didn't really answer the question, why not recognize it as a legitimate profession?
    - kcolford 7y ago
      But if it was normalized then with an increase of supply there would be downward pressure on prices making it no longer an effective way to make a living. Although normalizing it is very different from decriminalizing and regulating.
    - lr4444lr 7y ago
      The other respondent summarized me correctly, but I'll also add, why do most aspiring "actors" or "models" have to moonlight as waiters if it's a simple matter of people paying for something pleasurable that people want? Because those jobs carry social prestige, and they're flooded with competition. Disgust, danger, and/or fear among the eligible applicant pool keeps enough competition out of prostitution to make it work.
      - dadarepublic 7y ago
        Your comment "prostitution pays because we (collectively) look askance at it" Is directly equivalent to "sex work pays because 'we' look cynically/suspiciously at it" I summarized you correctly - you may not like what you said but my summarization was correct word for word. Comparing aspiring actors and models to sex work? This is a false equivalence. And your last sentence "disgust, danger, and/or fear" not only makes broad assumptions, but also reinforces what I commented earlier about corporate & labor law. And you still haven't really answered the question.
imgabe 7y ago
True. And drug dealers gotta eat too.

kcolford 7y ago

If your between 18 and 35, not all the wealth that you're able to enjoy the privilege of is under your control. Yes, someone can totally host a meeting in a large loft, but it doesn't necessarily mean the loft belongs to them and not their parents. Hell, even if it is their loft, it's not likely that it's being paid for out of the wealth they control, instead the parents pay for it. Also, holding on to a small fraction of wealth you got doesn't detract from the much larger fraction you've given away. Yeah, maybe they aren't suffering like average Joe is but when did it suddenly become mandatory for everyone to suffer? When did we start measuring how good our society is by how much everyone suffers? Going by the metric of making everyone live happy lives, they are doing pretty damn good. Investing the money only gets you back in the same position you were in before. Maybe you don't have the cash, but you sure do have the power. That's what these kids are trying to give up when they give away this money. That's the whole point of this organization.

MisterTea 7y ago
> Yeah, maybe they aren't suffering like average Joe is but when did it suddenly become mandatory for everyone to suffer? Working to earn a living is suffering? Where did the GP say anything about suffering?
- kcolford 7y ago
  Maybe my choice of the word "suffering" was too strong, but an appropriate replacement escapes me right now. So I'll leave it as is.

cushychicken 7y ago

I also have a very hard time identifying with people so wealthy they don't need to work, talking about change in posh cafes and loft apartments. It seems like much talk, little action. What have they done? What effects have their donations had? That's what I'd love to know.

whack 7y ago

> I'll believe it when they give away enough that they have to get real jobs and work for a living "In the meantime he works as a $115-an-hour SAT tutor for an agency." > Maybe that's overly snarky, but to me something rings hollow about people sitting in a multi-million dollar loft in Manhattan Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. Call me weird, but I think it's commendable that people are trying to find a middle ground instead of giving away absolutely everything. > Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? I don't think so Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Your overall tone appears to be very snarky and condescending towards people who haven't done anything to deserve it. It it motivated by envy? I can understand you not wanting to shower them with plaudits, but at least we could reserve judgement until they do something that's worthy of condescension.

imgabe 7y ago
> Do you also get snarky about Bill Gates giving away half his wealth to the Gates foundation? After all, he's still leaving billions aside for himself to live it up. I don't and I thought someone might bring this up. Let me explain. To me, Bill Gates is intellectually honest and consistent. He isn't apologizing for being rich. He doesn't believe it's wrong that he got rich. From my outside perspective he seems like he's just someone who likes to solve problems. He solved some problems that made him a lot of money. Now he wants to use that money to solve other problems. Ok. Fine. Contrast that to these kids. They are: 1. Saying that is bad and wrong that they have the money they have. They don't believe they should have it. 2. Continuing to hold on to the money they think it is wrong that they have. To me, that is intellectually dishonest. If I honestly believe that something I'm doing is fundamentally wrong, then I should stop doing that thing. I understand they probably can't dissolve their trust funds on their own. They could however choose to get a job and live off that income while directing 100% of their trust income to charity, while not living in a multi-million dollar loft they didn't pay for. Let me be clear, that's if they believe it's wrong. If they don't believe it's wrong, then they'd be acting consistently with their beliefs. It's not that I disagree with what they're doing, I'm bothered by the inconsistency between their words and their actions. > Almost everyone invests their money in productive businesses, simply by investing in the stock market. Heck, that's what most people do with their trust funds and riches. Choosing to give it away to charity definitely seems more noble. Eh, maybe not necessarily. If their trust is invested in a high-frequency trading fund that makes money by front-running trades, is that really a productive activity? Would it be better to make money in some rent-seeking activity and give it away or, for example, invest it in a steel mill where you accept reduced profits in favor of paying high wages and benefits? To me the latter helps people more and also produces steel, which is useful. (This is just an example, I'm not interested in a debate about the economics of running a steel mill in the US.)

abj 7y ago

If they're giving away money effectively because they're guilty that seems fine. While they could give away more if they sold that loft, the important thing is that they are giving away most of the trust. There needs to be a story they tell themselves where giving makes sense for them. If keeping the loft is part of that story, then it seems better to focus persuasion efforts on the people who aren't giving at all.

cryptica 7y ago

>> Would it be worse to invest the money in a way that employs people fairly even if makes a profit for yourself? TBH, I'd prefer it if they just spent the money on drugs and hookers rather than creating more useless jobs... We have too many of those already. Drugs are good. They're rat poison for the greedy. We should legalize drugs and make them stronger.

kcolford 7y ago
I want to downvote this so much but I don't have enough karma. So I'll just say that's not how drugs work. There are plenty of greedy people who's lives didn't get ruined by drugs. Furthermore, this is just an awful attitude to have towards people who struggle. They don't use drugs out of greed, they use them because they can't cope any other way.
- cryptica 7y ago
  They are greedy for emotions which makes them greedy in general. They're not necessarily evil, but on average, such people take much more than they give and that's the problem.