Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,283,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 202 of 385 FirstFirst ... 102152192200201202203204212252302 ... LastLast
Results 15,076 to 15,150 of 28843
  1. #15076
    The artist just got two of his pending covers cancelled

    Nobody gives a stink about sexualizing men, or any other sexual problems of men, for that matter. So it's no wonder that when artists treat men and women equally, feminists declare they are not equal by ignoring everything except for the depiction of women.

    The irony of the problem of privilege is that equality looks like oppression of the privileged.

  2. #15077
    I like this one better


  3. #15078
  4. #15079
    Lucky Luciano?
  5. #15080
    hah I see it now, wp
  6. #15081
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The irony of the problem of privilege is that equality looks like oppression of the privileged.
    Preface: I am royally faced. That said...

    What is ironic about this statement?
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  7. #15082
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
  8. #15083
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The irony of the problem of privilege is that equality looks like oppression of the privileged.
    Nevermind. I think i understand your point now.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  9. #15084
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Conjunction junction, what's your function?
  10. #15085
    Hookin' up words and phrases and clauses.
  11. #15086
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,894
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Haha, jyms joined Pinterest! What a girl.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  12. #15087
    Quote Originally Posted by kingnat View Post
    Nevermind. I think i understand your point now.
    GIN
  13. #15088
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house


    so this exists.

    ?wut
  14. #15089
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by bikes View Post
    so this exists.
    It's a big world out there!
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  15. #15090
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    Haha, jyms joined Pinterest! What a girl.
    Ya WTF!! All I wanted to do was look at some recipe that my mother sent to make chinese dumplings and I had to go through a god damn process to be able to click on the fucking pic. What the hell!!


    Not going to point out that somehow you noticed. Although I am not sure how you noticed.
  16. #15091
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by bikes View Post
    so this exists.

    Some people have awesome jobs. They get to design money guns.

    I didn't even know I wanted to design a money gun until I saw one.

    Now... what's the point?

    Seriously, though... That prop - filled with monopoly money or something - and a thick gold-plastic necklace, and you're automatically the R&B star of your choice for upcoming costume parties. 2EZ.

    Wait... is 2EZ actually someone's stage name? Wouldn't surprise me.
  17. #15092
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    #BendGhazi

    how can a mobile phone be something so fragile that it bends in your pants?

    Next thing you know they'll advertise this as a feature, saying that it contours to your body
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  18. #15093
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house

    ?wut
  19. #15094
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    #BendGhazi

    how can a mobile phone be something so fragile that it bends in your pants?

    Next thing you know they'll advertise this as a feature, saying that it contours to your body
    FACT: There were actually only 9 legitimate reported cases out of the approximately 10 million sold.
  20. #15095
    plz tell me this is an alt with the sole purpose of trolling wuggy, and not just wuggy himself wuggying shit up
  21. #15096
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's someone from the current game of WW, in which all players made anonymous accounts to put a spin on the game.

    It's triple trolling Wuggy (pic), Rilla (name) and BID (eyes).

    My gut says that BID (this game's moderator) would get his panties in a twitch if Wuf or Rilla tried to call that her/his anon account.
    It could be exactly the kind of thing BID finds funny, though, so idk.


    [speculation deleted]

    I'm not in the game, so I don't want to say anything about it.
  22. #15097
    in that case, eff off with your WW tom foolery in the rando thread. you heteros already have your gay super hetero threads
  23. #15098
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vatican-pae...videos-1467410

    This raises a lot of questions. I myself am an avid consumer of porn. Regular, adult porn. I don't store any of it. First of all I'm not much of a collector, second of all someone else may access my computer and I don't feel alright sharing my porn habits with other people, especially family. He's a fucking Archbishop of the vatican: THE most profiled group when it comes to child pornography. Why do you keep that stuff? And where do you get that much illegal pornography? I spent a fair amount of time on the internet. I don't see any of that! I saw a guy get fucked to death by a horse, but no kids, thank goodness!

    Is there any consensus yet why there are so many pedophiles in the catholic church? Can't be the myrrh, can it?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  24. #15099
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    you heteros already have your gay super hetero threads
    Wait. What? What does that... even...


    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Is there any consensus yet why there are so many pedophiles in the catholic church?
    Yes. It's where the catholic priests hang out.

    Seriously, though, is there a higher rate of pedos among Catholic priests compared to any other cross section of society?
    I have no idea.
    I was raised Catholic and never got pedoed.

    It's so cliche' as a joke that confirmation bias might play a role in which pedo stories make the news. Plus when it's a priest, it's a bit more tragic and shocking, since they're meant to be community leaders and role-models.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Can't be the myrrh, can it?
    Must... not... make... lube... joke...
  25. #15100
    I heard somewhere that the rate of pedos in the church isn't actually any greater than regular society but no idea where the numbers come from for either side of the argument.

    The numbers don't even matter nearly as much as the way the church handled the cases they did have, the reassignment of dicks and suppression of information and such, but there's a part of me that does wonder about the negative byproducts of suppressing and demonizing something as powerfully visceral as sexuality.

    Like maybe if they were allowed to crank it to amputee midget porn as god intended, they wouldn't need to go after the choir boys.
  26. #15101
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house

    ?wut
  27. #15102
    Yeah it's 2% in the church similar to society as a whole but the priests got singled because they do it to strangers' kids and the church/vatican tried to cover it up.
  28. #15103
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I may have made the mistake to think that pedophilia is similar enough to my own predisposition to post-pubescent vagina to draw parallels. I was thinking if I would find myself attracted to young boys I would at least have the decency to jerk off to disney movies instead of stocking up on illegal pornography... To pedophiles it might be something else entirely.

    2% seems really high to me. How do you survey that anyway? Time for an FTR poll?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  29. #15104
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Wow:
    The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[30][63] but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men.[30]
    -Wikipedia
    The [30] reference links to this:

    Pedophilia
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
    Vol. 5: 391-407 (Volume publication date April 2009)
    DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618

    5%?! That's huge.

    That's more prevalent that golfers! (citation needed).

    That means that.. odds are that at least one of you is a pedo. You sick bastard.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Time for an FTR poll?
    confirmed
  30. #15105
    I was in the front page of a news paper.
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  31. #15106
    I was gunna say 2% seems frighteningly high. But I guess there's always the pedos that don't actually act on their impulses.
  32. #15107
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Chelle View Post
    I was in the front page of a news paper.

    Go on.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  33. #15108
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Go on.
    Applied to be a model for a Living Art for a big event in a local city - did runway for the first time in front of a huge crowd. Well, danced/posed/walked down the runway with amazing art painted on me. Woke up this morning to a voicemail from my Mom, she saw it in one paper. My friend Tona put the paper that was at our door on her bed before she left the hotel this AM. I was also on a local news station for a second when they were talking about the event. I wish I could see me on the runway. This shit is crazy.

    Edit: My Mom had it laminated. And had me bring the paper that I'm on the front page with me, which obv I was already gonna do. Just, holy fuck. Never in a million years did I think I could do that.
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  34. #15109
    chelle you looked awesome :P that body paint was fucking serious
    Free your mind and your ass will follow.
  35. #15110
    Quote Originally Posted by aubreymcfate View Post
    chelle you looked awesome :P that body paint was fucking serious
    <3 thank you doll!

    That was so damn fun. I was terrified, but omg. I walked to the "Down with the sickness" from Richard Cheese. It was fucking awesome.
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  36. #15111
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    I was gunna say 2% seems frighteningly high. But I guess there's always the pedos that don't actually act on their impulses.
    Fun thought experiment: You can only have sex with one female one time before you die. You get to choose her age, and you'll be given a random female on Earth who is that age. What age do you pick?
  37. #15112
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Very nice. This is probably more convincing than my reason. Always a fan of data, but personally am an even a bigger fan of theory. According to theory, a wage gap couldn't exist. This is because if it did exist, some businesses would capitalize and hire more women and fewer men. But we don't see that. Furthermore, if that happened, by decreasing supply of female labor and increasing its demand while increasing supply of male labor and decreasing demand, the pay gap would merge

    So basically, even without data on the subject, a pay gap is an illusion. Unless, of course, there was regulation that made it so
    This isn't remotely true. Or rather, this is only true if we make the assumption that all employers have a perfectly optimized hiring process ... so in other words, this isn't remotely true.

    Actually, even if employers were perfectly optimized hiring machines, pay gaps could still exist. If 1950s Mississippian consumers are less likely to pay for goods and services from companies when they have to deal with a black man at some point in the process, then there will be a pay gap for any sector that 1950s Mississipians are consumers for. Depending on how you define the terms, you could argue that the black man is less qualified than his white counterpart (he's less capable of garnering sales for his company), but this isn't at all practical terminology in this context.

    This isn't to say anything about the greater issue at hand or SIN's link, but I just thought I'd drop in and say your theory is shit.
    Last edited by surviva316; 09-29-2014 at 11:59 PM.
  38. #15113
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Fun thought experiment: You can only have sex with one female one time before you die. You get to choose her age, and you'll be given a random female on Earth who is that age. What age do you pick?
    Sick angle.
  39. #15114
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Fun thought experiment: You can only have sex with one female one time before you die. You get to choose her age, and you'll be given a random female on Earth who is that age. What age do you pick?
    I have already sexed a non-zero number of females, so I cannot answer this question.
    Last edited by oskar; 09-30-2014 at 06:18 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  40. #15115
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I have already sexed a non-zero number of females, so I cannot answer this question.
  41. #15116
    I'd say 25.
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  42. #15117
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I was going to say, "However old I am at the time of the sexing," but that seems disingenuous... You see, I am 11 years older than the female with whom I sex.

    She was 21 when we first sexed (no pedo).

    She's gotten better at it since then, so 25 isn't a bad mark.


    If all the sexing is happening between virgins (unclear whether the females are virgins in this question), then sexing experience wont be a factor.

    Removing experience as a factor, then whatever age female sex-hunger peaks is probably the best.
    If at least one of us is questioning whether or not they're still capable of talking about morality with a straight face afterward... that's really optimal.
  43. #15118
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house
    i heard tswift sing someone like you on the youtubes yesterday. omg.

    ?wut
  44. #15119
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    16
  45. #15120
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by bikes View Post
    i heard tswift sing someone like you on the youtubes yesterday. omg.
    Could not find in 2s -> doesn't exist
  46. #15121
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'd say 30 since I'm not going to cash that in until I'm at least 40. Even right now I'd say 25-30. There's no question that younger looks better on paper, but I don't want to have to resolve daddy issues on the one time I get.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  47. #15122
    I would guess that most people under 25 suck at sex. Maybe if you could handpick one girl on Earth, then that one girl might be likely to be that young, but if you just have to play a game of averages based on nothing but age alone, then (I think) you're gonna end up with two planks of wood rubbing up against each other most of the time.

    I mean, maybe she'll be attractive and you'll recapture some glimmer of youth that you either have nostalgia for or never had the chance at in the first place, so that would all be nice if that's what. But it might be worth the perils of spying a few crow's feet to get a proper jolly on.

    All that being said, I'll pass, thank you. Hopefully I'm never so desperate that I'd take the hypothetical genie up on this tepid offer.
  48. #15123
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
  49. #15124
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    This isn't remotely true. Or rather, this is only true if we make the assumption that all employers have a perfectly optimized hiring process ... so in other words, this isn't remotely true.
    It doesn't have to be true of all or even most, just in aggregate. All individuals in economies have idiosyncrasies

    Actually, even if employers were perfectly optimized hiring machines, pay gaps could still exist. If 1950s Mississippian consumers are less likely to pay for goods and services from companies when they have to deal with a black man at some point in the process, then there will be a pay gap for any sector that 1950s Mississipians are consumers for. Depending on how you define the terms, you could argue that the black man is less qualified than his white counterpart (he's less capable of garnering sales for his company), but this isn't at all practical terminology in this context.

    This isn't to say anything about the greater issue at hand or SIN's link, but I just thought I'd drop in and say your theory is shit.
    For a time. Markets don't solve immediately. But they do gradually wear down and eliminate practices that are the least fit

    This is why I've used evolution as an analogy so many times. Markets function through the same type of mechanism as evolution. Where biological evolution is mutations chosen for fitness by environments, markets are business variations chosen for fitness by consumers
  50. #15125
    28
  51. #15126
    Late twenties is when women have finally achieved the full woman look without any of the negative aging. I'm not the type who likes pre-full-woman look. Even when I was 16 I was mostly attracted to women over 25
  52. #15127
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Late twenties is when women have finally achieved the full woman look without any of the negative aging. I'm not the type who likes pre-full-woman look. Even when I was 16 I was mostly attracted to women over 25


    ?wut
  53. #15128
    trollllololololololololololol
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  54. #15129
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It doesn't have to be true of all or even most, just in aggregate. All individuals in economies have idiosyncrasies
    I'm talking about something systemic; I'm talking about the case where (hypothetically or speculatively or whatever) HR departments on the whole favor one group over another.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    For a time. Markets don't solve immediately. But they do gradually wear down and eliminate practices that are the least fit

    This is why I've used evolution as an analogy so many times. Markets function through the same type of mechanism as evolution. Where biological evolution is mutations chosen for fitness by environments, markets are business variations chosen for fitness by consumers
    This isn't relevant to the point you quoted. How is the market going to solve the fact that the consumers are racists? So long as there's a prejudice among the consumers, it's going to (in theory) be reflected in the marketplace. The marketplace isn't going to adjust to shit over time except for to the very prejudice that causes the inequality in the first place.

    Obviously societies change, and I like to think that they do so for the better, so I'd like to think this means that consumers get to be better over time in my particular example, but it doesn't just happen through some magical capitalist equilibrium. I just happened to use an example of extreme and overt consumer prejudice, but I'm willing to bet that there's a pay gap for ugly people that isn't going anywhere fast.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and say that you meant to apply it to the first part of my post. It's more relevant to that point, but still just idealist mumbo jumbo. The fact that the fittest survive means that everything will become perfectly optimized, therefore every single quality that is preferable must needs be true is absolutely absurd logic. To use your evolution analogy, the fact that humans' eyes don't work near as well as anything that could be engineered by the human hand itself and routinely deteriorate over time doesn't mean that there is no survivalist advantage to having eyes that work good. Also, by your theory, nepotism doesn't exist. Hell, by your theory, primogeniture doesn't even exist, which wrinkles my brain just trying to comprehend.

    You don't have to be perfect to be successful; there's a margin of error that can be withstood. I don't know what you do for a living, but I can assure you that there's a lot of fat in the business world; The business world just isn't nearly as attritive as you make it out to be. There's enough money to go around, so the fat can withstand the blow of some inefficiencies, especially when those inefficiencies are systemic across all companies.

    I realize that you're going to try to rebut this by saying that any edge gained in HR can be leveraged by prices on the open market until all the orgs that do it wrong in HR can't keep up and die a slow but certain death, but this just flat out not how it works in the real world. For one, there are sectors that can sustain more than just a fixed number of orgs (which affects the prices for workers in other sectors). And for the sectors where there are only one or two behemoths battling it out, the orgs are sooooooooooo fucking massive that there are a billion facets of their organization, with such massive credits and debits associated with them, doing contributing to and detracting from the bottom line in ways that no human mind can comprehend on a large scale so that it would (mark my words) never reach equilibrium. Not in any number of generations of such businesses. So obviously companies are going to take every edge they can get, but employers would have to be insanely gnostic in order to ever recognize which aspects of theirs and others companies provide those advantages for the evolution process to ever take the next step.

    Also, you make it sound as though successful companies are the only sector of employment. Even if companies get so good at the hiring process that anyone who is deficient in this area is bound to fail, then there could still be systematic preferences among those doomed-to-fail-but still-for-the-time-being-paying-their-employees, and these organizations would drive up the market price for others. This is less like evolution (where only the living can reproduce) and more like poker (where anyone who thinks they're good enough to invest in themselves contributes to the economy). Just because NLHE is getting closer and closer to solved doesn't mean that the aggregate CBet% on PokerStars is ever ever ever ever going to perfectly reflect GTO.

    Besides--and this is maybe the most damning point--you didn't say, "There won't be a pay gap once we reach that far-off, halcyon day when the markets have resolved all of its own inefficiencies to the point that HR departments operate absolutely without flaw so that all of pay must needs be perfectly meritorious"; you said that the pay gap IS an illusion--that there IS NOT currently any problem that needs to be solved. Even if I were to agree with your premise that if we just let capitalist attrition run its course, then we'll get to a point where it's impossible for women to be paid less than their equally qualified male counterpart, it would still be possible to accelerate the process with a policy that decays over time as we get closer to the magical equilibrium day.

    So no no no no on a million levels, no. It is very much possible for there to be non-meritorious pay that systemically favors certain groups. Whether it's true or not is a whole other issue, but I feel like your "The Magic of the Unregulated Markets' Assured Equilibrium" rhetoric is more pernicious than anything else in the discussion.
  55. #15130
    Sorry for all the one line responses. I don't have the time to do these sorts of discussions anymore. I understand that this response is likely not convincing at all

    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    This isn't relevant to the point you quoted. How is the market going to solve the fact that the consumers are racists? So long as there's a prejudice among the consumers, it's going to (in theory) be reflected in the marketplace. The marketplace isn't going to adjust to shit over time except for to the very prejudice that causes the inequality in the first place.
    Market history has shown us the opposite. The primary driver of changes in prejudices is subversion by markets.

    Obviously societies change, and I like to think that they do so for the better, so I'd like to think this means that consumers get to be better over time in my particular example, but it doesn't just happen through some magical capitalist equilibrium. I just happened to use an example of extreme and overt consumer prejudice, but I'm willing to bet that there's a pay gap for ugly people that isn't going anywhere fast.
    Maybe in a not so competitive market. But in a competitive one, productivity reigns supreme. Just keep in mind that ugly people are less productive than attractive people

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and say that you meant to apply it to the first part of my post. It's more relevant to that point, but still just idealist mumbo jumbo. The fact that the fittest survive means that everything will become perfectly optimized, therefore every single quality that is preferable must needs be true is absolutely absurd logic. To use your evolution analogy, the fact that humans' eyes don't work near as well as anything that could be engineered by the human hand itself and routinely deteriorate over time doesn't mean that there is no survivalist advantage to having eyes that work good. Also, by your theory, nepotism doesn't exist. Hell, by your theory, primogeniture doesn't even exist, which wrinkles my brain just trying to comprehend.
    Optimization is not perfection.

    You don't have to be perfect to be successful; there's a margin of error that can be withstood. I don't know what you do for a living, but I can assure you that there's a lot of fat in the business world; The business world just isn't nearly as attritive as you make it out to be. There's enough money to go around, so the fat can withstand the blow of some inefficiencies, especially when those inefficiencies are systemic across all companies.
    That has to be true, otherwise nobody would survive

    I realize that you're going to try to rebut this by saying that any edge gained in HR can be leveraged by prices on the open market until all the orgs that do it wrong in HR can't keep up and die a slow but certain death, but this just flat out not how it works in the real world. For one, there are sectors that can sustain more than just a fixed number of orgs (which affects the prices for workers in other sectors). And for the sectors where there are only one or two behemoths battling it out, the orgs are sooooooooooo fucking massive that there are a billion facets of their organization, with such massive credits and debits associated with them, doing contributing to and detracting from the bottom line in ways that no human mind can comprehend on a large scale so that it would (mark my words) never reach equilibrium. Not in any number of generations of such businesses. So obviously companies are going to take every edge they can get, but employers would have to be insanely gnostic in order to ever recognize which aspects of theirs and others companies provide those advantages for the evolution process to ever take the next step.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Productivity increases all the time, even in the most regulated markets, where productivity is hindered. It looks like you're taking isolated incidences and calling it a free market

    Also, you make it sound as though successful companies are the only sector of employment. Even if companies get so good at the hiring process that anyone who is deficient in this area is bound to fail, then there could still be systematic preferences among those doomed-to-fail-but still-for-the-time-being-paying-their-employees, and these organizations would drive up the market price for others. This is less like evolution (where only the living can reproduce) and more like poker (where anyone who thinks they're good enough to invest in themselves contributes to the economy). Just because NLHE is getting closer and closer to solved doesn't mean that the aggregate CBet% on PokerStars is ever ever ever ever going to perfectly reflect GTO.
    You're assuming a pretty severe lack of competition, which we only see existing in highly regulated markets

    Besides--and this is maybe the most damning point--you didn't say, "There won't be a pay gap once we reach that far-off, halcyon day when the markets have resolved all of its own inefficiencies to the point that HR departments operate absolutely without flaw so that all of pay must needs be perfectly meritorious"; you said that the pay gap IS an illusion--that there IS NOT currently any problem that needs to be solved. Even if I were to agree with your premise that if we just let capitalist attrition run its course, then we'll get to a point where it's impossible for women to be paid less than their equally qualified male counterpart, it would still be possible to accelerate the process with a policy that decays over time as we get closer to the magical equilibrium day.
    I was speaking in theory, which is that in markets where the price system is allowed to work, the incentives don't produce a pay gap. Keep in mind that the price system is economics

    So no no no no on a million levels, no. It is very much possible for there to be non-meritorious pay that systemically favors certain groups. Whether it's true or not is a whole other issue, but I feel like your "The Magic of the Unregulated Markets' Assured Equilibrium" rhetoric is more pernicious than anything else in the discussion.
    When one argues for regulation, one argues for a monopoly on violence (monopoly on violence is the philosophical foundation of the state). Isn't it ironic that everybody thinks monopolies are terrible unless it's a monopoly on violence?
  56. #15131
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,200
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I find it unreasonable to expect humans (as groups or individuals) to behave in a manner that could casually be described as reasonable.

    I find it unreasonable to expect humans or their institutions to act in accordance with their own self-interest.



    Any economic theory which fails to take these 2 important facts into account seems like it's a great theory for some non-humans to try out. I don't see how it's relevant to human economics, though.
  57. #15132
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    But the pay gap *is* a myth. Next.
  58. #15133
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I find it unreasonable to expect humans (as groups or individuals) to behave in a manner that could casually be described as reasonable.

    I find it unreasonable to expect humans or their institutions to act in accordance with their own self-interest.
    This is totally true, and why markets have done so well for us. Markets take as much human judgement out of the equation as we could hope for. Markets assume that humans are unwise and act in self-interest. The concept of government assumes humans are wise and act without self-interest.

    The popular criticisms of markets and the popular defenses of governments are completely backwards. The state is by its most basic definition the monopoly on violence, yet all of us who hate monopolies of virtually anything still defend this monopoly. Markets are where all the ideas go to compete, and as far as we can tell, the bad ones die and the good ones prosper.

    Think of your own favorite thing: science. The peer review process is its foundation and it is a free market. Imagine if there was a monopoly on regulation of science, where an entity set the rules and corrects disobedience to those rules through force. It would no longer be science. It would be a disaster. We live in a handful of these kinds of disasters, yet we take them for granted and think there is no other way. Oftentimes we call the solution to these disasters to be further control by the monopoly that creates them
  59. #15134
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I find it unreasonable to expect humans (as groups or individuals) to behave in a manner that could casually be described as reasonable.

    I find it unreasonable to expect humans or their institutions to act in accordance with their own self-interest.



    Any economic theory which fails to take these 2 important facts into account seems like it's a great theory for some non-humans to try out. I don't see how it's relevant to human economics, though.
    I agree with this completely. I've said as much before in my discussions with Renton and wuf et al. I've never seen a theory that models people. Though, the models themselves will do a damn sight better at explaining what's going on than people, they're no where near strong enough to start painting a future with.
  60. #15135
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by bikes View Post
    One glance at that gif and I thought "damn, that looks like something Wes Anderson would do. Like a Darjeeling Limited. WTF is that from?"

    Obviously I've never seen it before, or known about the thing. Gotta go watch it in HD though
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  61. #15136
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Fun thought experiment: You can only have sex with one female one time before you die. You get to choose her age, and you'll be given a random female on Earth who is that age. What age do you pick?
    Peak fertility, probably 21-22?
  62. #15137
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Peak fertility, probably 21-22?
    Peak fertility is quite a bit earlier than that.
  63. #15138
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Maybe in a not so competitive market. But in a competitive one, productivity reigns supreme. Just keep in mind that ugly people are less productive than attractive people

    ...

    Optimization is not perfection.[1]

    ...

    That has to be true, otherwise nobody would survive

    ...

    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Productivity increases all the time, even in the most regulated markets, where productivity is hindered. It looks like you're taking isolated incidences and calling it a free market

    ...

    When one argues for regulation, one argues for a monopoly on violence (monopoly on violence is the philosophical foundation of the state). Isn't it ironic that everybody thinks monopolies are terrible unless it's a monopoly on violence?
    Let's ignore all of these points for now. Free marketists believe that corporate fat can only be the result of regulations; that voters are ignorant even of their own well-being, while consumers know exactly how to spend their dollars; etc. I've heard all these things before and have become no less baffled by them, so we're not going to get anywhere by rehashing these fundamental disputes.

    Let's focus on the other reasons why a pay gap can exist in a free market that are mentioned in this post:

    1) A pay gap will exist in any market where the consumers are prejudiced based on the type of people they choose to by from/receive service from/etc, and since the consumers are made of human beings, there's a good chance there will be prejudices. Whether the state should make remedial policy to counteract this is a different discussion.

    2) Even if employers who have suboptimal hiring practices are doomed to die a quick and fiery death, those employers still contribute to the workforce economy. Whether the state should make remedial policy to counteract this is a different discussion.

    3) Even if free markets tend toward perfect optimization--like a limit approaching infinity--this says nothing for where a market is at any point in its history. Whether the state should make expeditious policy to bridge the gap is a different discussion.

    So, in response to point #1, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Market history has shown us the opposite. The primary driver of changes in prejudices is subversion by markets.
    My, how quickly we waver from pure theory to history lessons. My only point is that if consumers will pay less when they have to at any point engage with a certain type of person, then that certain type of person will be offered less pay in the workforce in a free market. Can we really not agree on something so basic?

    In response to point #2, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You're assuming a pretty severe lack of competition, which we only see existing in highly regulated markets
    There does not exist a level of competition so severe that a company that pays more for male workers than female workers is instantaneously Dead On Arrival. Even if the corporation makes 0 profit for its entire lifespan, then the initial investment itself will still contribute to the workforce economy. This is essentially how the fish-based poker economy works, hence the analogy.

    In response to point #3, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was speaking in theory, which is that in markets where the price system is allowed to work, the incentives don't produce a pay gap. Keep in mind that the price system is economics
    Well, just so long as you were talking about a secret fairyland where no one lives, then I guess I can't possibly take issue with you saying that there can't be a pay gap. In the US as it is structured, it is wholly possible that it has a pay gap. If the US were to drop all of its "regulations," then there is still the possibility of a pay gap existing for a long time--regardless of whether or not the market is constantly culling itself toward a slow but inevitable process of becoming optimized in the eventual future. That is my point. It seems a much more relevant point than yours.



    [1] The deficiencies of our eyes aren't because of an impossibility or even impracticality. Our eyes work well enough to get enough of us to 16 years old and squirt into a puss-hole, so even though having eyes that work better for longer would marginally increase chance of survival, it's not enough to have a mass effect on the race, regardless of how many generations ahead we go.

    Now, what you're talking about in the rest of the post is a system so competitive and unforgiving that literally only the fittest survive, so you actually need an analogy much much harsher than evolution.
  64. #15139
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Let's ignore all of these points for now. Free marketists believe that corporate fat can only be the result of regulations; that voters are ignorant even of their own well-being, while consumers know exactly how to spend their dollars; etc. I've heard all these things before and have become no less baffled by them, so we're not going to get anywhere by rehashing these fundamental disputes.
    We don't believe what you say we do. There is a ton of fat in business and always will be, even if the state is non-existent.

    Let's focus on the other reasons why a pay gap can exist in a free market that are mentioned in this post:

    1) A pay gap will exist in any market where the consumers are prejudiced based on the type of people they choose to by from/receive service from/etc, and since the consumers are made of human beings, there's a good chance there will be prejudices. Whether the state should make remedial policy to counteract this is a different discussion.
    This is true but is only half the formula. The other half is the law of supply and demand. In a free market, prejudiced actors make it more profitable for competition to be without those prejudices by raising the cost of the prejudice. In turn, this lowers the prices for the un-prejudiced consumers, which, along with attracting more marginally-prejudiced consumers who prefer lower prices, which removes customers from the prejudiced businesses, lowering their profits, forcing cutbacks, lowering investment capital and product diversity, raising prices, etc.

    I first heard the idea from Milton Friedman, but he wasn't the only economist who claims it (most economists do): trying to regulate against prejudice just stops prejudices from being priced out of the market.

    2) Even if employers who have suboptimal hiring practices are doomed to die a quick and fiery death, those employers still contribute to the workforce economy. Whether the state should make remedial policy to counteract this is a different discussion.

    3) Even if free markets tend toward perfect optimization--like a limit approaching infinity--this says nothing for where a market is at any point in its history. Whether the state should make expeditious policy to bridge the gap is a different discussion.
    I think I see one core of our disagreement. Macroeconomists tend to think in aggregates and the so called "long run". An economy is never at a state of perfection. It is only at a policy state which creates certain effects. The policy states and timetables cannot be fully understood. There are policy states that don't support pay gaps, but that doesn't mean that there aren't blips where a pay gap can exist in a certain sector at a certain time in a certain region.

    My, how quickly we waver from pure theory to history lessons. My only point is that if consumers will pay less when they have to at any point engage with a certain type of person, then that certain type of person will be offered less pay in the workforce in a free market. Can we really not agree on something so basic?
    I think you have causality backwards. It is that prejudiced-against laborers have over supply and under demand of their labor, which means that they can (and will) be paid less, which in turn makes the prices of that business' goods/services less, which increases its consumer base and raises profits and reduces its prejudiced competition market share, which ultimately increases the demand of and reduces the labor supply of the prejudiced-against laborer, which is what increases his wages.

    Not to mention that the same process is going on in the labor of the prejudiced business but in opposite direction, decreasing labor supply and increasing demand, which raises the costs of that labor and the prices of the goods/services. Prejudice in a marketplace is a mega win for everybody except the prejudiced, but this problem-solving dynamic is deterred when government regulation is introduced.


    There does not exist a level of competition so severe that a company that pays more for male workers than female workers is instantaneously Dead On Arrival. Even if the corporation makes 0 profit for its entire lifespan, then the initial investment itself will still contribute to the workforce economy. This is essentially how the fish-based poker economy works, hence the analogy.
    This can't be true because some businesses fail. Also that initial investment didn't contribute to the economy, at least not as the idea that more wages is more wealth. It was a sunk cost. Investment operates the same as consumption, and it comes out of savings, which is delayed consumption. This, however, could have indirectly increased the wealth in the economy if the products/services increased productivity
  65. #15140
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Well, just so long as you were talking about a secret fairyland where no one lives, then I guess I can't possibly take issue with you saying that there can't be a pay gap.
    Theory, bro!
  66. #15141
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    We don't believe what you say we do. There is a ton of fat in business and always will be, even if the state is non-existent.
    Well, one instance of corporate fat could be lazy hiring criteria. But again, this isn't the part of the conversation I want to focus on (though I likely won't want to focus on any part of this conversation much longer anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is true but is only half the formula. The other half is the law of supply and demand. In a free market, prejudiced actors make it more profitable for competition to be without those prejudices by raising the cost of the prejudice. In turn, this lowers the prices for the un-prejudiced consumers, which, along with attracting more marginally-prejudiced consumers who prefer lower prices, which removes customers from the prejudiced businesses, lowering their profits, forcing cutbacks, lowering investment capital and product diversity, raising prices, etc.

    I first heard the idea from Milton Friedman, but he wasn't the only economist who claims it (most economists do): trying to regulate against prejudice just stops prejudices from being priced out of the market.
    Or people will just continue to pay more to work with the service people they prefer to work with. The oldest and least regulated profession on earth still has price gaps because the consumers in that market are willing to pay more for certain types of workers.

    I'm not all that interested in your uncited appeal to big-name economist and assurances that all other authorities agree with x opinion. It wasn't all that many moons ago that someone named wufwugy was shouting that any economist worth listening to was heralding the glory of punitive taxes.[source unavailable]

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think I see one core of our disagreement. Macroeconomists tend to think in aggregates and the so called "long run". An economy is never at a state of perfection. It is only at a policy state which creates certain effects. The policy states and timetables cannot be fully understood. There are policy states that don't support pay gaps, but that doesn't mean that there aren't blips where a pay gap can exist in a certain sector at a certain time in a certain region.
    I'd imagine economists might be a little offended if they overheard you saying that they forbid from conversation any talk of what policy may or may not be best to employ in the meantime, while we sit around waiting for society to achieve a perfect ideal. If this is meant as a defense for what you said (that a pay gap doesn't exist in an unregulated market), then that's fine; I promise I do now better understand what you meant by that. It doesn't change my point or its relevance, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ... Prejudice in a marketplace is a mega win for everybody except the prejudiced, but this problem-solving dynamic is deterred when government regulation is introduced.
    I'm trying to keep the conversation as focused as possible, and I'm not arguing whether remedial policy is good or bad. You said that pay gaps can't exist in an unregulated economy, and I've been trying to show how they can. You can't say, "If you look at it from any perspective (except for the prejudiced workers making less money), then everything's great," as if that changes anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This can't be true because some businesses fail. Also that initial investment didn't contribute to the economy, at least not as the idea that more wages is more wealth. It was a sunk cost. Investment operates the same as consumption, and it comes out of savings, which is delayed consumption. This, however, could have indirectly increased the wealth in the economy if the products/services increased productivity
    The poker analogy may have confused things. I didn't mean to say that the employer injects money into the economy by making an investment and making $0 of profit. I meant that they still decide where their investment goes. If there's some permanent endemic where shitty employers pay people with brown hair 10xs as much as people with blond hair, then it doesn't matter how doomed they are to fail quite quickly; the price of hiring workers with brown hair will go up because there's a market for them to jump from failed startup to failed startup, making 10xs as much money.

    Whatever, that's all probably good enough, though I put this together a bit more hastily than I generally like to.
  67. #15142
    Unless I'm misunderstanding the setup, I feel like the answer to this question is somewhere between 15-17. (I agree with spoon.) If you go for late twenties, you run the risk of her already having kids. And the truth of the matter is that while a late twenties girl has a better chance of being a good lay than a girl in her early twenties, if you get "random girl" odds are she's probably going to be a bad lay. In my experience there's a huge range of ability, and most girls are pretty weak in the sack when compared to those that are really great. Ergo, I'd probably go for the age, where everything is fully developed and at it's best chance for being perky and such.

    That said, I would also probably turn down this deal.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  68. #15143
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,894
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    One glance at that gif and I thought "damn, that looks like something Wes Anderson would do. Like a Darjeeling Limited. WTF is that from?"

    Obviously I've never seen it before, or known about the thing. Gotta go watch it in HD though
    It's definitely a very cool movie.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  69. #15144
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    Or people will just continue to pay more to work with the service people they prefer to work with. The oldest and least regulated profession on earth still has price gaps because the consumers in that market are willing to pay more for certain types of workers.
    Which is that? Farming? I'd love to see which sector you're talking about. Keep in mind that whatever example use can't have a productivity gap, since pay gap can only be determined if there is no productivity gap

    I'm not all that interested in your uncited appeal to big-name economist and assurances that all other authorities agree with x opinion.
    Is that supposed to be a good thing? Economists have a much different view of these things than, well, everybody else. The main place I get any of my information on economics is from the works of currently teaching PhDs in economics. What more could any of us ask for than their opinions?

    It wasn't all that many moons ago that someone named wufwugy was shouting that any economist worth listening to was heralding the glory of punitive taxes.[source unavailable]
    I'm not sure if I've ever used the phrase "punitive taxes". And sure, I probably said something like that, but it depends. The economics profession by large considers taxation of unwanted externalities as potential good. One of the most widely believed things among economists is that if you want less of something, tax it.

    Other than that, I've said way more wrong things than I've said right things. About everything. Being right is extremely hard, and you tend to only get right when you've exhausted yourself in all the different ways you're wrong.



    I'd imagine economists might be a little offended if they overheard you saying that they forbid from conversation any talk of what policy may or may not be best to employ in the meantime
    Sorry to add confusion, but the long run is the meantime. Macro is weird like that. I didn't make that up. It's basically verbatim Scott Sumner

    My understanding of why that is (I could be wrong on the explanation), is that there is a delayed effect in economies for all sorts of things just like how there's a delayed effect for everything else in existence (even the fastest thing ever, sunlight, takes a few seconds to show its effects on Earth). But delayed effect doesn't mean that the cause wasn't already made.


    The poker analogy may have confused things. I didn't mean to say that the employer injects money into the economy by making an investment and making $0 of profit. I meant that they still decide where their investment goes. If there's some permanent endemic where shitty employers pay people with brown hair 10xs as much as people with blond hair, then it doesn't matter how doomed they are to fail quite quickly; the price of hiring workers with brown hair will go up because there's a market for them to jump from failed startup to failed startup, making 10xs as much money.
    This policy is a no-pay-gap-creating policy. Macroeconomics does not speak in terms of snapshots. It looks at aggregate effects of policy over a large sample over a long period. The situation you mentioned is one where a pay gap will exist for only a brief time before collapsing and then returning to whatever stasis the current economic environment incentivizes
  70. #15145
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    It's definitely a very cool movie.
    Agreed. Recommended. Just saw it this morning.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  71. #15146
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Peak fertility is quite a bit earlier than that.
    Lucky me.
  72. #15147
    bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,443
    Location
    house
    fucking jalepenos are so fucking delicious but 5-6 hours later its like massive fucking regret.

    ?wut
  73. #15148
    Quote Originally Posted by bikes View Post
    fucking jalepenos are so fucking delicious but 5-6 hours later its like massive fucking regret.
    I had roasted long hots and cheese for lunch yesterday, and ever since I've been very grateful that I work from home.

    There are about 100 reasons that I can't understand how people work in an office 40 hours a week.
  74. #15149
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,894
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    I had roasted long hots and cheese for lunch yesterday, and ever since I've been very grateful that I work from home.

    There are about 100 reasons that I can't understand how people work in an office 40 hours a week.
    So much this.

    I had no problem working in an office but it's so nice working from home where you can just let 'em rip or run porn constantly on your second screen without the judging glares of your co-workers. I dunno, maybe I'm just old-fashioned.


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  75. #15150
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    There are about 100 reasons that I can't understand how people work in an office 40 hours a week.
    Many have to, but I seriously have wondered with the way things are now, how many people work in offices that don't really have to but are made to. I'm willing to bet with a good wifi connection and teamveiwer you wouldn't need to go to work ever if all you do is work on a computer

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •