6 ms·
> to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity Not really. The point
by dlss 13y ago
> to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity
Not really. The point actually should read "men making an agreement not to flirt with married women would be worse for married women as a whole".
Note this differs from your version in two important ways:
A1. The group that is benefited is not women, but married women
A2. "Every opportunity" is replaced with "where the man in question believes it is a good idea"
And the version with those modifications is clearly true.
High level argument:
B1. the cost to happily married women isn't particularly high (they stay in their relationship, feel flattered, have a fun conversation, etc)
B2. the cost to unhappily married women would be particularly high (since they have less knowledge about potential alternatives / may stay in a bad situation longer due to lack of information)
I'm not sure what the exact population sizes are for those two groups, but by using the divorce rate as a quick proxy we can see it's a high enough ratio to be net positive. Hence it would be better.
(If you are thinking about talking about obnoxious flirting, I will point you to A2 above)
FWIW "Please explain why women get remarried" is just a shorter version of the above argument -- the reason men not flirting with married women is bad for married women as a whole is because some would get remarried.
> If we take this logic even further, perhaps ever-more-clever ways of men sabotaging the others' relationships with their wives would have even BETTER results for the wives, because they are more "competitive"? Doesn't this have diminishing returns?
You talk about straw men in other threads. Do you really not see the straw man in your last two replies to me? No one is arguing that Apple should seek to harm the way that Google's employees feel about Google except in true ways ("Google is paying you 20% less than market" is good if true in much the same way as "Greg is cheating on you" is good if true. Both are of course bad if false)
- EGreg 13y agoWell let's take this context of married women for example. The reality is that there are many men who do not have any qualms about "trying to seduce" a married woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKfMqwSMI4U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKfMqwSMI4U (I just had to link this :-) These men do not "respect" the institution of marriage or the religious views on adultery etc. There are entire forums on the internet devoted to "how to get a girl in a relationship" with "boyfriend destroyer routines" or whatever. The idea is that an institution employing experts with lots of experience in poaching employees, is going to have an unequal advantage over the employee, and is likely to entice them either through souring their relationship with their current employer (maybe telling an employee about how Apple's workers are treated in China, for example) as well as using psychological tricks to lure them away. Flirting is one thing. Blatantly propositioning in front of the husband when he's ware of it is something else. Most people draw a line not because they want to flaunt some antitrust law, but because of biological / economic emergent actions. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798 http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798
- dlss 13y agoSo you're saying in your mind accepting a job is like committing to a marriage? "Till death do us part" and all that? You can moonlight as an employee, so at the very least you have to agree it's like a swinger/open marriage. I don't know the protocol there, but I'm guessing blatantly propositioning someone in an open marriage falls in to a different category than a closed one. It's much closer to talking to someone who's single. re: unequal recruiting skill level vs the employee. Are you now taking the position that recruiting is immoral in and of itself?
- EGreg 13y agoRecruiting involves many things and what is considered moral is relative. An HR dept will pay recruiters to advertise in APPROPRIATE places and screen candidates, do background checks, set up a pipeline etc. If the recruiter is instructed not to advertise the company's openings in strip clubs or porn sites, that isn't illegal or immoral. This is how I view instructing the recruiters not to advertise on their competitor's website or target other company's employees. Perhaps they think the cost of bad reputation or reprisals from those companies was too high. It doesn't have to be a "conspiracy". As I posted, an arxiv article shows that cartels are a natural emergent phenomenon of markets. As far as marriage - there was a time when people worked decades for a company and earned a pension. These days esp in the tech industry those days are long gone. Poaching is an additional cost of hiring employees. You want to increase this cost - fine, and it will be passed on to the employees and depress their salaries. Your argument that the correlation is the other way is sofar without basis. I am not arguing that it is not illegal - the courts should decide that. I am saying this enforcement goes contrary to the purpse of the law and no one wins.
- trekky1700 13y agoSo you're saying other companies offering tech workers high salaries will lower their salaries? I think you're missing the point.
- EGreg 13y ago