10 ms·

I mean, no one's forcing anyone to use dating apps

hikingsimulator 4y ago
I agree, but it is a surface level retort still in my opinion. What I find more insidious is the way people on HN deal with such statistics. The HN typical person is a relatively well-off suburban CS employee. The rhetoric on HN when markets are talked about, e.g. the labour market, often revolves around free markets being good -- because it favors this typical HN's user position. They have never experienced any precariousness. Now, comparing dating apps to a market is very slimey, but the analogy work to the extent where the focus is the HN user's expectation and how prevalent the market discourse seems to be here: like the worker offers their labour force to a company, a pretendent offers their social time and skills on a dating app. Except that the HN's user is experiencing the precariousness in the latter -- an unacceptable thing, apparently. Except one is not owed this attention, time or privilege. Thinking the imbalance is unfair is a mark of expected privilege as they have in other space. It's a bit bonkers. Thinking of it -- dating -- as a market is a bad thing, morally, ethically, and psychologically, but it remains the underlying tone I see in this thread.
- derevaunseraun 4y ago
  > e.g. the labour market, often revolves around free markets being good -- because it favors this typical HN's user position. Care to explain? I'd imagine that something along the lines of unionization wouldn't hurt the salaries of tech workers. > Thinking the imbalance is unfair is a mark of expected privilege as they have in other space I find it interesting to refer to labor exchange value as a "privilege", as if it were something arbitrarily bestowed from some higher authority. Wage is the result of adversarial relationships between demand and supply and not one of some arbitrary authority doling out favors left and right with strings attached
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    > Wage is the result of adversarial relationships between demand and supply and not one of some arbitrary authority doling out favors left and right with strings attached Except there are: - systematic biases in access to the skills needed for this contest - systematic asymmetries of information/social capital/access which skew access to high earning professions - outright discrimination against minority groups and women in payment All of which means current remuneration is in part (not wholly) a reflection of privilege.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - derevaunseraun 4y ago
      > systematic biases > outright discrimination against minority groups and women in payment How do you know that demographic differences are significantly linked to wage differences and there aren't other factors at play? For example, a mother may want to spend time with her children and work part time instead of full time. Would you consider this discrimination? Do you think the mother should be paid a full time salary for working only part time? If the husband of the mother works full time and earns more because of it, would you consider this difference in compensation to be a product of privilege? I'd love to hear your thoughts
      - jseban 4y ago
        Yeah it makes perfect sense for a woman to maximise their time and resources to their fertile years, and not shift that over to older age. Funny also how nobody is looking at the expense gap, if women are making the same money as men, then obviously they should share expenses 50/50 as well. How many couples actually do that? Women are underrepresented in the top level of society, but always turn a blind eye to the fact that they are underrepresented in the bottom of society as well. Women should get the same share of rewards as men, but not take any of the risks? How does that make any sense? If women are taking place in the boardrooms, are they also going to increase their share in prisons? Among homeless? Premature death? And self actualisation is having children anyway, so women are already at endgame. The reason why men work so hard with careers, is because it enables them to have children and start a family, not because it's just fun to play around with money and power.
  - hikingsimulator 4y ago
    Unionizing indeed wouldn't hurt for a vast majority of workers. However, people on HN seems to generally be anti-union because, by virtue of their career position, they do not experience the instability that a lot of people suffer under. Moreover there is also this idea that unions would reduce their career/salary prospects. i.e. HN people tend to enjoy a comfy position on the labour market that makes them removed from and sometimes disdainful of the plight of a majority of workers. When I say privilege, it is less about the value of the work itself, and more about the overall stability (and of course wealth) that CS jobs have guaranteed over the past 20 years. As you mentioned it, adversarial is a good term here. A lot of HN people have not experienced how adversarial and imbalanced the labour market really is (think people stuck in the poverty trap working retail jobs in the US for instance). So you have a lot of people here that seem to apply the labour market logic they're accustomed to, to a social relationship setup they ultimately see as a market -- which is a bad thing in my opinion. Hoping this clarifies my point.
    - derevaunseraun 4y ago
      > Moreover there is also this idea that unions would reduce their career/salary prospects. I don't know why it would, but you did also say it was just an idea. I have a hard time believing that an SWE union wouldn't be able to improve compensation and wlb > So you have a lot of people here that seem to apply the labour market logic they're accustomed to, to a social relationship setup they ultimately see as a market -- which is a bad thing in my opinion. Yeah I wholeheartedly agree with this because it's essentially the commodification of relationships, which makes me sick to my stomach
      - hikingsimulator 4y ago
        The idea that a union would lead to a loss of revenue is a recurring anti-union rhetorical point because unions usually involve membership "fees" (which are more organisational cost payment). There is also the idea that unions are corrupt, but it's more of a tu quoque than anything.
- Joeboy 4y ago
  Can't we say that the labour market is a market, and is unfair to some people, and the dating market is a market, and is unfair to some people? I'd guess that would be the "typical" HN person take, and I don't see a problem with it. I also don't see a problem with wanting to increase your chances of success, in either arena. > one is not owed this attention, time or privilege I thought this[0] was a really good piece about this kind of framing [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does...
  - hikingsimulator 4y ago
    You could! My point is that it is a bad thing. People shouldn't see social relationships as a market with pseudo-economic value attached. There is also the possible point that Tinder, for instance, isn't an app to create "meaningful" social relationships, only hook ups.
    - Joeboy 4y ago
      Not sure what you mean by "pseudo-economic value" How is that different from "value"? It's not like people are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen. I get that the "market" framing is not very endearing, for a lot of people, and maybe not very healthy. But I don't think it's wrong. Worrying about your position in the labour market also isn't particularly healthy or endearing, but I don't think it's wrong. How are you supposed to ununderstand what you've understood?
      - hikingsimulator 4y ago
        "value" in economics is a term applied to goods and services. my use of "pseudo", as in spurious or invalid, here really plays with my critique of using the market framing for social relationships. They're not goods or services. This "worry" as you purport it to be can only exist in a system that makes it so. The worry of >tfw no gf is not comparable to the fear of losing one's job and health insurance, and the utter lack of opportunity to bounce back, meaning a job is a matter of survival. But since a lot of people on HN don't experience this latter situation, it's easy to see dating as a market where goods and services should be easy to get. The market analogy breaks down in more than just this aspect. So, it's not wrong per se, sure, you can say that, but it's deeply, even inherently, flawed in my book. I don't understand you ending rhetorical question.
- vintermann 4y ago
  Talking about something as a market doesn't mean it should be a market. I've known plenty of people - women too - who spoke with disdain of the "meat market", but still went to bars to meet strangers, put up online profiles etc., things they hated, because what can you do? People get lonely, and women are people too. Which is why it's so arrogant to say participating is optional. You have to go where people are, unless you're OK with being lonely for a long time.
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  I can't get a girl 'Cause I ain't got a car I can't get a car 'Cause I ain't got a job I can't get a job 'Cause I ain't got a car So I'm looking for a girl with a job and a car Don't you know where you are
4gotunameagain 4y ago
No one is forcing anyone to use smartphones either, but the societal pressure is immense. Which sucks because smartphones have net negative effects imo.
newsclues 4y ago
There is a network effect of the critical mass of people who assume and use apps as the best way to date these days, and many of the traditional ways to date have eroded.
pydry 4y ago
If 70% of people meet their partner online it corrals you into doing it too. You're not forced in the same way you're not "technically" forced to get a job - the societal pressures are all 2nd order.

I agree, but it is a surface level retort still in my opinion. What I find more insidious is the way people on HN deal with such statistics. The HN typical person is a relatively well-off suburban CS employee. The rhetoric on HN when markets are talked about, e.g. the labour market, often revolves around free markets being good -- because it favors this typical HN's user position. They have never experienced any precariousness. Now, comparing dating apps to a market is very slimey, but the analogy work to the extent where the focus is the HN user's expectation and how prevalent the market discourse seems to be here: like the worker offers their labour force to a company, a pretendent offers their social time and skills on a dating app. Except that the HN's user is experiencing the precariousness in the latter -- an unacceptable thing, apparently. Except one is not owed this attention, time or privilege. Thinking the imbalance is unfair is a mark of expected privilege as they have in other space. It's a bit bonkers. Thinking of it -- dating -- as a market is a bad thing, morally, ethically, and psychologically, but it remains the underlying tone I see in this thread.

derevaunseraun 4y ago
> e.g. the labour market, often revolves around free markets being good -- because it favors this typical HN's user position. Care to explain? I'd imagine that something along the lines of unionization wouldn't hurt the salaries of tech workers. > Thinking the imbalance is unfair is a mark of expected privilege as they have in other space I find it interesting to refer to labor exchange value as a "privilege", as if it were something arbitrarily bestowed from some higher authority. Wage is the result of adversarial relationships between demand and supply and not one of some arbitrary authority doling out favors left and right with strings attached
- bigfudge 4y ago
  > Wage is the result of adversarial relationships between demand and supply and not one of some arbitrary authority doling out favors left and right with strings attached Except there are: - systematic biases in access to the skills needed for this contest - systematic asymmetries of information/social capital/access which skew access to high earning professions - outright discrimination against minority groups and women in payment All of which means current remuneration is in part (not wholly) a reflection of privilege.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    > systematic biases > outright discrimination against minority groups and women in payment How do you know that demographic differences are significantly linked to wage differences and there aren't other factors at play? For example, a mother may want to spend time with her children and work part time instead of full time. Would you consider this discrimination? Do you think the mother should be paid a full time salary for working only part time? If the husband of the mother works full time and earns more because of it, would you consider this difference in compensation to be a product of privilege? I'd love to hear your thoughts
    - jseban 4y ago
      Yeah it makes perfect sense for a woman to maximise their time and resources to their fertile years, and not shift that over to older age. Funny also how nobody is looking at the expense gap, if women are making the same money as men, then obviously they should share expenses 50/50 as well. How many couples actually do that? Women are underrepresented in the top level of society, but always turn a blind eye to the fact that they are underrepresented in the bottom of society as well. Women should get the same share of rewards as men, but not take any of the risks? How does that make any sense? If women are taking place in the boardrooms, are they also going to increase their share in prisons? Among homeless? Premature death? And self actualisation is having children anyway, so women are already at endgame. The reason why men work so hard with careers, is because it enables them to have children and start a family, not because it's just fun to play around with money and power.
- hikingsimulator 4y ago
  Unionizing indeed wouldn't hurt for a vast majority of workers. However, people on HN seems to generally be anti-union because, by virtue of their career position, they do not experience the instability that a lot of people suffer under. Moreover there is also this idea that unions would reduce their career/salary prospects. i.e. HN people tend to enjoy a comfy position on the labour market that makes them removed from and sometimes disdainful of the plight of a majority of workers. When I say privilege, it is less about the value of the work itself, and more about the overall stability (and of course wealth) that CS jobs have guaranteed over the past 20 years. As you mentioned it, adversarial is a good term here. A lot of HN people have not experienced how adversarial and imbalanced the labour market really is (think people stuck in the poverty trap working retail jobs in the US for instance). So you have a lot of people here that seem to apply the labour market logic they're accustomed to, to a social relationship setup they ultimately see as a market -- which is a bad thing in my opinion. Hoping this clarifies my point.
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    > Moreover there is also this idea that unions would reduce their career/salary prospects. I don't know why it would, but you did also say it was just an idea. I have a hard time believing that an SWE union wouldn't be able to improve compensation and wlb > So you have a lot of people here that seem to apply the labour market logic they're accustomed to, to a social relationship setup they ultimately see as a market -- which is a bad thing in my opinion. Yeah I wholeheartedly agree with this because it's essentially the commodification of relationships, which makes me sick to my stomach
    - hikingsimulator 4y ago
      The idea that a union would lead to a loss of revenue is a recurring anti-union rhetorical point because unions usually involve membership "fees" (which are more organisational cost payment). There is also the idea that unions are corrupt, but it's more of a tu quoque than anything.
Joeboy 4y ago
Can't we say that the labour market is a market, and is unfair to some people, and the dating market is a market, and is unfair to some people? I'd guess that would be the "typical" HN person take, and I don't see a problem with it. I also don't see a problem with wanting to increase your chances of success, in either arena. > one is not owed this attention, time or privilege I thought this[0] was a really good piece about this kind of framing [0] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does...
- hikingsimulator 4y ago
  You could! My point is that it is a bad thing. People shouldn't see social relationships as a market with pseudo-economic value attached. There is also the possible point that Tinder, for instance, isn't an app to create "meaningful" social relationships, only hook ups.
  - Joeboy 4y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "pseudo-economic value" How is that different from "value"? It's not like people are putting dollar values on their dating prospects, from what I've seen. I get that the "market" framing is not very endearing, for a lot of people, and maybe not very healthy. But I don't think it's wrong. Worrying about your position in the labour market also isn't particularly healthy or endearing, but I don't think it's wrong. How are you supposed to ununderstand what you've understood?
    - hikingsimulator 4y ago
      "value" in economics is a term applied to goods and services. my use of "pseudo", as in spurious or invalid, here really plays with my critique of using the market framing for social relationships. They're not goods or services. This "worry" as you purport it to be can only exist in a system that makes it so. The worry of >tfw no gf is not comparable to the fear of losing one's job and health insurance, and the utter lack of opportunity to bounce back, meaning a job is a matter of survival. But since a lot of people on HN don't experience this latter situation, it's easy to see dating as a market where goods and services should be easy to get. The market analogy breaks down in more than just this aspect. So, it's not wrong per se, sure, you can say that, but it's deeply, even inherently, flawed in my book. I don't understand you ending rhetorical question.
vintermann 4y ago
Talking about something as a market doesn't mean it should be a market. I've known plenty of people - women too - who spoke with disdain of the "meat market", but still went to bars to meet strangers, put up online profiles etc., things they hated, because what can you do? People get lonely, and women are people too. Which is why it's so arrogant to say participating is optional. You have to go where people are, unless you're OK with being lonely for a long time.
DeathArrow 4y ago
I can't get a girl 'Cause I ain't got a car I can't get a car 'Cause I ain't got a job I can't get a job 'Cause I ain't got a car So I'm looking for a girl with a job and a car Don't you know where you are

4gotunameagain 4y ago

No one is forcing anyone to use smartphones either, but the societal pressure is immense. Which sucks because smartphones have net negative effects imo.

newsclues 4y ago

There is a network effect of the critical mass of people who assume and use apps as the best way to date these days, and many of the traditional ways to date have eroded.

pydry 4y ago

If 70% of people meet their partner online it corrals you into doing it too. You're not forced in the same way you're not "technically" forced to get a job - the societal pressures are all 2nd order.