Piling on new user for sport

April 21, 2006 11:17 PM

Is it me, or is piling on a new user now the official sport of AskMe?
posted by RikiTikiTavi to Etiquette/Policy at 11:17 PM (81 comments total)

I don't think he was piled on to harshly. If thought he was going to be called on the issue he should have addresed it in his original post...

The problem is that new users don't word their questions as carefully or as thoughtfully as they should. Most of the times that they do get piled on it's deserved. When posting a link on metafilter / ask.metafilter there is going to be a world wide audience reading and responding to the post. This is not a chat board. And since ask.me posts are often quite personal or touchy subjects any kind of prejudice / ill thoughts / etc. will likely show up in the post.

Questions should be carefully asked (and researched (guilty.))
posted by bigmusic at 11:38 PM on April 21, 2006

Woulda gone better if elle had written how much she could afford to pay rather than "I can't pay U.S. wages". Because I assumed, like others did, that this referred to minimum wage like togdon mentioned. Assumptions were made because there were big gaps in her question.
posted by boo_radley at 11:53 PM on April 21, 2006

member since: November 30, 2004

New user?
posted by DaShiv at 11:59 PM on April 21, 2006

I think those responses were more emotional than anything else. People weren't answering the question, plain and simple. They're in the wrong, not the asker.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:05 AM on April 22, 2006

elle.jeezy has posted no links to MetaFilter
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk
and 1 question and 13 answers to Ask MetaFilter

New user.
posted by jenovus at 12:06 AM on April 22, 2006

I understood immediately what she was looking for (although I didn't have any good answers). The question wasn't "how can I pay someone below minimum wage?" That was the interpretation of people without reading comprehension. Peoples' reponses really annoyed me for some reason. It was as if they refused to understand what she was asking. The post was a little wordy or whatever, but perfectly understandable.
posted by Falconetti at 12:18 AM on April 22, 2006

Are you serious? Someone possibly misinterpreted elle.jeezy's goal and instead of politely clarifying the problem (by pointing out, for example, that she wanted to pay more than minimum but less than established freelance rates), she responded with: "I am really not interested in having an argument about this", then - after a rambling non-explanation including PLENTY OF CAPS - she got annoyed that people still didn't get what she was looking for.

The resulting "pile on" was far less than I would have expected, given her angry defensiveness and inability to properly communicate what she wanted.
posted by stefanie at 12:19 AM on April 22, 2006

He said from his first reply that he did not wish to argue and that's all people continued to do. Lame behavior in that thread, totally not the asker's fault.
posted by knave at 12:28 AM on April 22, 2006

Sorry, "he" might be "she".
posted by knave at 12:29 AM on April 22, 2006

The resulting "pile on" was far less than I would have expected

I think this post is about trying to raise those expectations, particularly in ask metafilter. If you cant contribute, walk away. I hate it when people jump into threads to scold people.
posted by vacapinta at 12:32 AM on April 22, 2006

Oh hell, that's not a pile-on, especially since it was elle.jeezy who was needlessly snippy in her first two replies. acoutu was simply trying to clarify and has maintained perfect politeness throughout the thread, and mdn's first answer is clearly an on-topic attempt to answer the question, even if it starts with sarcasm. Now, what did we get from the poster? Two immediate, whiny responses that do nothing but ratchet up the emotional content. Puh-lease. Next time she might want to wait for more than *two comments* before wading in with "Oh, I knew you all would be this awful!" bullshit.

It's amazing the thread is going as well as it is.
posted by mediareport at 12:39 AM on April 22, 2006

I think her attitude was uncalled-for.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, is all I'm sayin'.
posted by anjamu at 1:18 AM on April 22, 2006

It's disingenuous to claim that acoutu's reponse wasn't combative. It was. The phrasing of the question assumes that the asker is unreasonable but leaves the possibility open that accouto's misunderstood, for plausible deniability's sake. Accouto could have asked for the possibly missing information or more clarification without strongly implying that the asker was being unreasonable.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:20 AM on April 22, 2006

And for what it's worth (not much), this really bothered me (as a sometime freelancer myself):

I don't have the extra cash to fully support another individual here in the U.S. which is what I find many freelancers expect.

It's a job just like any other. For doing quality, competent work, of course they'd expect to be paid accordingly.
posted by anjamu at 1:22 AM on April 22, 2006

from the wording and initial posts it may be clear why s/he has had difficulty in retaining freelance emplyees.
posted by edgeways at 1:28 AM on April 22, 2006

"this really bothered me"

And that's relevant how, exactly?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:43 AM on April 22, 2006

edgeways said it well.

I personally don't think I'd want to work for someone who couldn't understand the fact that I, too, am trying to earn a living for myself.

Why is it relevant? Because it's her attitude as much as anything that earned her that type of response.

When I posted my first AskMe, the very first response was not particularly kind, but somehow I managed not to snap at the person and got some helpful advice from them.
posted by anjamu at 2:05 AM on April 22, 2006

I'm not convinced that a year and a half of limited activity is indicative of a "new" user, seeing how elle.jeezy's comments stretch all the way back for almost an entire year. At the very least, it'd be rather disingenuous to plead ignorance when it comes to being surprised by the type of responses elicited by starting that thread.
posted by DaShiv at 2:10 AM on April 22, 2006

Thirding edgeways. I would also pass on an opportunity to work for the questioner. She really comes across as difficult.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:47 AM on April 22, 2006

What a singularly unpleasant-seeming person that woman is. One hopes that her username is her real name, and google points people to that thread eventually, so potential employees can see what kind of person they'd be working for.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:15 AM on April 22, 2006

(I would like to hear her employees side of the story. )
posted by R. Mutt at 4:27 AM on April 22, 2006

Wow, a lot of people still don't seem to grasp that AskMe is not MetaTalk. EB put it succinctly (wow, never thought I'd write that sentence):

People weren't answering the question, plain and simple. They're in the wrong, not the asker.
posted by languagehat at 4:53 AM on April 22, 2006

I already removed a few comments from that thread that were heavily flagged. I thought acoutu's clarification question was a little loaded but the response to it was way out in left field and I think contributed to the continued misunderstanding. If the original poster had just said "No, I don't mean less than $2.65" we would have been able to move forward. It's sort of what he/she said, but not entirely. Acoutu's response "From your description of what's gone on so far, I'm concerned that you will run into further problems of miscommunication if you enlist the help of someone thousands of miles away." seems spot-on as were the rest of acoutu's helpful replies. It's also pretty much what many other people in the thread are saying.

I'm usually a strong advocate of being a little nice to the n00b, but I'm not really sure anyone in that thread, what's left of it, was really not answering and contributing to a pile-on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:59 AM on April 22, 2006

“...but I'm not really sure anyone in that thread, what's left of it, was really not answering and contributing to a pile-on.”–jessamyn

The asker basically asked how she could outsource some clerk-ish work. The majority of people simply didn't answer the question because they didn't like the question. This is nothing new. There's no excuse for it. It wasn't a hugely hostile pile-on, true, but it was a not-unimportant number of people all complaining about what she was planning to do. For example, Anjamu says, “Why is it relevant? Because it's her attitude as much as anything that earned her that type of response." Saying that it's relevant doesn't make it relevant.

I don't detect that much of a obnoxious tone in the asker, especially when her being defensive is entirely understandable. It seems to me that much of the supposed obnoxiousness of the asker is in the minds of her critics who are making judgments of her character on the basis of what she's asking about, which they don't approve of in one or more respects.

There's this problem here with askme and argumentative, judgmental answers where everyone agrees that this shouldn't be be done...except when they think it should be done. Because, you know, in this one special case, it's justified.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:36 AM on April 22, 2006

Because, you know, in this one special case, it's justified.

That's not at all what I was saying. We try to leave answers that answer the question, even if sometimes they are snark+answer. Or snark+clarification. Except for possibly odinsdream all the people who responded seemed to be offering an answer to the poster or a clarfication question (or answer to that). The corrolary to not piling on the n00bs is also trying, as the question asker, to be willing to accept that people may give you a wide range of answers including "that is not a good idea"

The asker basically asked how she could outsource some clerk-ish work.

That's a good summary, but it's not what she posted. The asker included a lot of information about the situation which seemed to be conditions for what she was asking for, and people tried to figure out what points were salient. elle.jeezy seems to be saying she can't pay US wages, but then she says she just "can't find good help these days" among the people she's found in the US. She's hired professors and has (or had) several people working who she likes and yet seems to need one "personal assistant" It's a confusing request with many variables that seem important and yet unclear and when people try to get at what she's asking for, her responses seem to further muddy the waters. I didn't answer in the thread because all I had to say was "I think I see your problem."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:43 AM on April 22, 2006

Is it me, or is piling on a new user now the official sport of AskMe?

Not the official sport, but more of a well-loved hobby.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:59 AM on April 22, 2006

It has nothing to do with being new. Venerable oldies are just as likely to get effed with a pitchfork on Metafilter as the noobs.
posted by crunchland at 7:37 AM on April 22, 2006

it's quite simple - if you suggest giving jobs to foreigners you're fair game, but if you question the importance of the motor car in american life (esp. teenagers) you're an embittered nutcase.

come on, it's not that hard to get with the program. watch tv a bit more.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:42 AM on April 22, 2006

andrew cooke: "it's quite simple - if you suggest giving jobs to foreigners you're fair game, but if you question the importance of the motor car in american life (esp. teenagers) you're an embittered nutcase.

come on, it's not that hard to get with the program. watch tv a bit more."

you sound like a ton of fun at parties. I bet girls swoon at your free from the carefree, kind, and giving attitude you exude.

what if you're driving a foreigner to their job in an American teenager's job while writing in a moleskine?
posted by kcm at 8:41 AM on April 22, 2006

(I should preview more, as my American education clearly left that sentence incomprehensible. free->feet, job->car, etc.)
posted by kcm at 8:42 AM on April 22, 2006

For what it's worth, Ethereal Bligh, I gave her the best advice in her thread that I could give.

And part of asking for advice is learning that you're not gonna like or agree with all of the advice that people give you. If people say it's not a good idea, or it can't be done, you don't have to listen to them, but it's their advice.

Generally speaking, I've learned that when you ask someone for advice, the best way to make them really mad really quickly is to insult their advice or say "I shouldn't have asked you" or so on. Given that, the responses she got were ... well, human nature.
posted by anjamu at 8:50 AM on April 22, 2006

the responses she got were ... well, human nature.

And beating up someone who insults you is human nature. It's still illegal, and for a good reason. For a similarly good reason, you're not supposed to insult questioners on AskMe, even if they deserve it. Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to insult people, come over here to the gray, for Pete's sake.
posted by languagehat at 8:59 AM on April 22, 2006

This is one of those problematic Askmes, where it is clear that the questioner is asking the wrong question. Instead of "How can I hire an overseas Personal assistant?" what she should have been asking was "How can I do a better job choosing and managing my personal assistants." I think the best thing to do is to just skip those kinds of questions--though I did go back and tried to offer an answer.
posted by LarryC at 9:13 AM on April 22, 2006

I don't know if there were deleted comments that were really harsh, but the answers this woman got were pretty much, in her own words, "to be expected", given the wording of the question. Communication doesn't seem to be her strong point.

On a broader level, it's interesting that alot of people here are so polarized in their responses -- either taking one side or the other; I think Jessamyn is exactly right, both posters and people giving answers have to make an effort to be clear and on topic (and civil would be nice too). The poster wasn't any of these things and neither were several of the people giving answers. Amazingly, the question still got answered quite well.
posted by sic at 9:46 AM on April 22, 2006

RikiTikiTavi writes...
Is it me, or is piling on a new user now the official sport of AskMe?

It's you. Speaking as someone who reads most of the answers in AskMe, the vast majority of questions are asked and answered with very little controversy. The very few that aren't end up here in MetaTalk.
posted by tkolar at 10:04 AM on April 22, 2006

You're not supposed to insult questioners on AskMe, even if they deserve it. Why is this so hard to understand? If you want to insult people, come over here to the gray, for Pete's sake.

In her thread, I gave her constructive advice. On the gray, I said that her attitude wasn't exactly helping things.

AskMe goes both ways; if you want advice and constructive criticism, you'll benefit from being open-minded and not defensive. At very least, a harsh, critical attitude might drive away people who otherwise would have been inclined to help you.
posted by anjamu at 11:48 AM on April 22, 2006

One hopes that her username is her real name

You never know...
posted by maxreax at 12:04 PM on April 22, 2006

...is piling on a new user [has been] now the official sport of AskMe[Fi].
posted by Shane at 3:13 PM on April 22, 2006

I'm glad to see blue beetle and Shane actually answered the question RikiTikiTavi asked, instead of going on about some dust-up over on AskMe. And for what it's worth, I agree that the answer to the original question is "yes, in fact it has been for some time".
posted by TedW at 3:35 PM on April 22, 2006

after a rambling non-explanation including PLENTY OF CAPS - she got annoyed that people still didn't get what she was looking for.

If you don't understand the question, you have the option of just shutting your mouth. Other people were able to give good answers.
posted by delmoi at 4:04 PM on April 22, 2006

It's a job just like any other. For doing quality, competent work, of course they'd expect to be paid accordingly.

Yes, and people in diffrent countries expect diffrent amounts of money, which was the whole point of asking the question in the first place.
posted by delmoi at 4:05 PM on April 22, 2006

It's a global economy based question put to a forum with an international membership. It seems the word 'outsourcing' automatically infers cheap Indian labour and the ire of every American.

Keywords - Computer related, Personal Assistant, Variety of skills, Strong work ethic, Reliable, Fair pay conditions.

What's the issue here?

Imagine if Nike used the same criteria?
posted by strawberryviagra at 4:42 PM on April 22, 2006

Yes, and people in diffrent countries expect diffrent amounts of money...

yeah, I think the problem is that it just comes across as trying to get away with not paying what you would expect someone to pay you for the same work - it's kind of just a response to the inherently unfair attitude that grounds the search.
Fair wages should mean that you are paying for what the work is actually worth to you rather than the cheapest deal you can get away with. Not worth getting snarky about, and i regret responding in the thread, but given that this is generally a liberal-ish community, and she set the question up to sound like she wanted to exploit overseas labor, i don't think she got harshed on too badly, really.
posted by mdn at 4:49 PM on April 22, 2006

she set the question up to sound like she wanted to exploit overseas labor

It didn't read that way at all to me. But then again, I try not to jump to conclusions about a person's soul based on a couple sentences (not attacking you mdn, I don't think that statement applies to you, but rather just to the sort of general knee-jerkiness of AskMe).
posted by Falconetti at 5:19 PM on April 22, 2006

well - she specifically said she couldn't afford US wages. She described the work and said she needed someone skilled and reliable and with a strong work ethic, except she wasn't willing to pay a fair market wage for it.

clearly the current state of the global economy makes it possible for her to take advantage of the variation in global economy, but on a fundamental level she is paying less than the value of the work.
posted by mdn at 5:36 PM on April 22, 2006

^variation in national economies...

also, "value" as relative to her own area, not as if intrinsic
posted by mdn at 5:38 PM on April 22, 2006

I can only assume that her situation is this: she has under charged for the work, the client has agreed to the costing and now she is unable to undertake it, and can't find anyone else willing to do it for the price she proferred.

This is why I always suggest that all contractors are charged out at proper market rates - so that if they are no longer available, they can be replaced without having to renegotiate the fee (and a number of other reasons).

This is one way of setting reasonable expectations in the market whilst protecting your future and others' businesses from the prospect of cheap overseas labour (in my view).
posted by strawberryviagra at 7:54 PM on April 22, 2006

"Fair wages should mean that you are paying for what the work is actually worth to you rather than the cheapest deal you can get away with."

Sigh.

Just as a single example, an insight into the actual ramifications and limitations of your reasoning, has it occured to you that your criteria is a double-edged sword? How much is a lifeguard's "work" worth to a swimmer who is drowning?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:17 PM on April 22, 2006

TedW wrote...
I'm glad to see blue beetle and Shane actually answered the question RikiTikiTavi asked, instead of going on about some dust-up over on AskMe. And for what it's worth, I agree that the answer to the original question is "yes, in fact it has been for some time".

So, out of curiousity was this a cleverly ironic comment on how we generally only find what we expect in life?
posted by tkolar at 8:29 PM on April 22, 2006

oh, 'sigh' yourself. I even feel like I've had this argument with you before... you're not bribing someone to save your life when you pay a lifeguard; you're paying someone to keep watch and be capable of swimming well. It has a certain worth due to the risk of injury without a lifeguard, not to the one case where someone's life is saved. anyway, this is why I added the "not intrinsic" value comment - the point is that what she is paying is not fair market value for where she lives - it's the value of a different market that she has limited access to, where people live off much less $.

but hey, whatever, enjoy the cheap labor, I really don't want to get into an argument over it. It struck me as a little icky, but perhaps I was overreacting and "the market will sort it out". I'd have thought fewer mefites would feel that way, though.
posted by mdn at 9:04 PM on April 22, 2006

Fair wages should mean that you are paying for what the work is actually worth to you rather than the cheapest deal you can get away with.

I have to agree with Ethereal Bligh in not understanding this sentence. It seems that people are bringing in their own view of economics into the question when - well, thats not what was asked for. I consider myself a liberal but I also like to consider global variation, cultural variation, a somewhat floating sense of "whats fair" in a global economy.

This doesnt extend to a relativism about decency and human standards but I dont think this particular question was going anywhere near that.
posted by vacapinta at 9:09 PM on April 22, 2006

I gave a suggestion in the comments - but it did give me a flashback to a job I had briefly where the part time employer wanted me to do an amazing amount of work in very little time, for very little pay. Employer was extremely nice and apologetic about it - I understand it's difficult to be in a small business. But unless you need the work for resume fodder (I did) there's very little motivation to take such jobs. Which is why employing a college student can be a good idea - sounds like she just didn't find the right student. I still wonder how you could outsource what she wanted done to someone - just communicating might be difficult, depending on how she hires and where they're located.

Meanwhile I can completely understand why the way the question was framed would bring out the snark. I'm betting a lot of people can relate very personally with being underpaid for the amount of work expected in their jobs.
posted by batgrlHG at 9:33 PM on April 22, 2006

Which is why employing a college student can be a good idea - sounds like she just didn't find the right student.

I dunno about that. I'm one of those people who read a few of her posts and ran screaming. It has nothing to do with outsourcing/payment/whatever -- the woman is simply not a good communicator, and gets angry when people fail to telepathically understand what it is she is asking for.

Call me psychic, but I can just hear the echoes of "I don't get paid enough to put up with this shit" that surround her.

In some ways, outsourcing might actually be the right solution for her. If she is forced to confront the fact that there are going to be communication difficulties, she may be more careful and disciplined in how she presents her requirements.

Here's hoping. Otherwise she's going to continue being a frustrated puppy for the forseeable future.
posted by tkolar at 9:56 PM on April 22, 2006

"I'm betting a lot of people can relate very personally with being underpaid for the amount of work expected in their jobs."

My favorite personal anecdote about hellish employers is the time when I worked as a payphone repair technician with a very, very small company (that made weird payphones). One evening, the owner of the company, a big-hair and heavily made-up woman who drove Cadillac, demanded that myself and the receptionist stay after 5 and scrub the floors. That's not the best part. The best part is that it was Labor Day. I'm certain the irony was lost in her. By the way, we both said, "screw that." I didn't work for her long.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:57 PM on April 22, 2006

Meanwhile I can completely understand why the way the question was framed would bring out the snark.

But that's the point that Ethereal Bligh and languagehat are making - leave the snark behind in AskMe. I think AskMe only time-outs would be good for people who seem unable to answer the question.

By the way "answering the question" can include reframing the question in a polite way e.g. "Perhaps you don't need to outsource internationally. Here are my suggestions for getting quality, inexpensive labour within America..."
posted by meech at 10:07 PM on April 22, 2006

I still want to know why nobody's promised to hunt me down and kill me. I even insulted Arthur C. Clarke once for pete's sake!
posted by davy at 10:44 PM on April 22, 2006

I'd like to take a moment and point to an example of miscommunication in an AskMe thread that was handled well by the poster.
Here. As a kind of counter example to the topic at hand
posted by edgeways at 11:44 PM on April 22, 2006

Why did pete need davy to insult Arthur C. Clarke? And languagehat says Pete needs insults in the gray. Why is Pete so hurtful?
posted by cgc373 at 3:18 AM on April 23, 2006

tkolar: probably not so clever, I just found it funny that this MeTa post about questions not being answered in AskMe was itself an unanswered (albeit rhetorical) question.
posted by TedW at 5:58 AM on April 23, 2006

Furthermore, I can see the points being made on both sides of the argument, and without being able to indignantly take one side or the other, I had to come up with something to say.
posted by TedW at 5:59 AM on April 23, 2006

All right, davy, I'll hunt you down and kill you. I'm a freelancer, so it'll mean losing income—you'd think one of those MeFites with cushy corporate jobs could just take a few personal days, but no-o-o, they're too busy clubhopping and visiting Aruba—but I just can't resist your plea any longer. If you hear a crackling sound behind you, don't turn around. Just wait.

mdn: You don't understand the first thing about economics, do you?
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on April 23, 2006

languagehat:

I take it by "economics" you're referring to laissez-faire capitalism?

'Cuz it turns out there are a few other schools of thought on the matter.
posted by tkolar at 7:00 AM on April 23, 2006

I just found it funny that this MeTa post about questions not being answered in AskMe was itself an unanswered (albeit rhetorical) question.

Do you often see rhetorical questions answered? I think that would be more likely to be funny.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:59 AM on April 23, 2006

I hope s/he doesn't expect the citizens in her town's fire and police departments to rush to his/her assistance when things go wrong. Or expect to sell anything to any citizens. Him/her and Wal-Mart and Nike and all the rest of them.

There is no reason why one can't find a highly dedicated and qualified personal assistant for the menial tasks listed in any US town of 10K or more for less than $10/hour. Look for a single mom who needs a few extra bucks with flexible hours, or a retired schoolteacher stretching a pension to breaking. Work ethic doesn't exist in America? Screw you, seriously. The implication that all available American workers are spoiled brats who won't accept a reasonable rate of pay and give their all is what's offensive about the original poster's question and comments. You live here? You pay taxes here? Your physical business is here? Your customers are here? Hire them.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:57 AM on April 23, 2006

And that goes for Nike and WalMart too.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:57 AM on April 23, 2006

I dunno about that. I'm one of those people who read a few of her posts and ran screaming. It has nothing to do with outsourcing/payment/whatever -- the woman is simply not a good communicator, and gets angry when people fail to telepathically understand what it is she is asking for.

FWIW, I totally agree with this. The poster could have headed off all the criticism if she'd worded her question more carefully. (In fact if she 'expected' the backlash she should have done something to head it off).

Still, some people have trouble communicating, and Ask Me should be useful to them as well.
posted by delmoi at 11:32 AM on April 23, 2006

""Fair wages should mean that you are paying for what the work is actually worth to you rather than the cheapest deal you can get away with.""

Fair wages should mean that you are paying six of one, rather than half a dozen of the other!

"Still, some people have trouble communicating, and Ask Me should be useful to them as well."

It was useful. She now knows that she has difficulty communicating.
posted by klangklangston at 12:23 PM on April 23, 2006

"I take it by 'economics' you're referring to laissez-faire capitalism?"

No, he probably was referring to the basic principles of market economics—the only context within which "fair wages" is relevant. We could argue about whether there are any credible alternatives to comparative advantage to form the principles of a science of economics; and we could argue about whether there are alternatives to market economics in the context of economics as an engineering discipline. Indeed, we could argue about whether there's sufficient rigor in any practice of economics, empirical science or engineering discipline, to justify a designation of "science" or "engineering". But this would all be beside the point in the context of a discussion about how to define/determine "fair wages". Certainly this is true in this particular case where we are discussing what a real person in the US might pay another real person, in the US or elsewhere, for some amount of work.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:38 PM on April 23, 2006

Yeah, EB's got it.
posted by languagehat at 3:42 PM on April 23, 2006

So wait a minute, if we want to define "fair wages" we have to accept American capitalism as it stands?

The reason I ask is that as a real person in the U.S. I drastically "overtipped" my waitress this morning. The reason that I did so was that I was eating alone and if there had been two of us she would have gotten twice as much money for basically the exact same work. I did not believe that the random chance of my eating alone today justified her getting payed less.

My point here is that I chose to pay someone more than the economic system demands they be paid, because I thought it was more fair. I don't think mdn is terribly offbase in suggesting the woman in this thread could choose similarly.
posted by tkolar at 6:53 PM on April 23, 2006

"I don't think mdn is terribly offbase in suggesting the woman in this thread could choose similarly."

No. But he is offbase in suggesting that she should¹. And, no, the market economics that I refer to, which is in a deeper sense comparative advantage, is no more "American capitalism as it stands" as it is "laissez-faire capitalism". And, to be further clear, it is not necessarily "capitalism", either. If the precise use of all these terms is confusing or seems insigifnicant, then a great deal more study of economics is the cure for that illness.

1. This is because his "should" was not inconsequential. The "should" clearly implied that there was a higher state of social justice possible within the context of market economics achievable if only everyone paid what they thought as "fair". That ethics is involved in the root of this implicated assertion is not essential because we don't have to rigorously define "social justice" to see that what he had in mind is quickly opposed by counterexemplar² application of his rule.

2. This is why I heartily embrace neologisms. This is a useful word I, as far as I know, just now coined.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:32 PM on April 23, 2006

tkolar: probably not so clever, I just found it funny that this MeTa post about questions not being answered in AskMe was itself an unanswered (albeit rhetorical) question.

Personally, I don't mind the direction the thread's going; this is MeTa after all.

I wouldn't say we're at a "crisis" or anything. Sometimes, though, I wonder why Matt keeps running the place. Every once in a while I'm happily reminded why. :)
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:38 PM on April 23, 2006

Ethereal Bligh...
If the precise use of all these terms is confusing or seems insigifnicant, then a great deal more study of economics is the cure for that illness.

Well, as much as I would like to become as edumucated as you are, and get to make up fancy new words, I think I will just pick up my things while retaining eye contact, and slowly back away, making no sudden motions.
posted by tkolar at 11:47 PM on April 23, 2006

Yes, tkolar, because actually knowing what you're talking about is a frightening idea.
posted by languagehat at 5:19 AM on April 24, 2006

I think that was a snark at EB's typo of insignificant. At least, I hope it was. :)

As for the thread in question: asker asks question which could, with very little effort, be read to say that they're willing to exploit foreign people to do the same work as an American, for much less. That's how I read it the first time, but I had no non-snark advice so I didn't bother answering. For me, it was the "I can, however, pay someone in another country a fair wage for there." part of the original post that tweaked off my "omg this is going to be a huge pileon" detector.
posted by antifuse at 8:10 AM on April 24, 2006

But he is offbase in...

While we're talking about offbase, mdn is a woman.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:18 AM on April 24, 2006

So noted.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 AM on April 24, 2006

&lt
&gt
posted by jfuller at 5:56 PM on April 24, 2006

< br> >
posted by jfuller at 5:56 PM on April 24, 2006

I am honestly really surprised to be the only mefite who thinks having a national minimum wage is a good idea. I don't believe in "living wage" situations that want to randomly increase the minimum to something the market can't bear, but I do think we should agree not to exploit people. And yes, I think there is a difference between paying a fair wage and paying the least you can get away with. If I accidently underpay and then notice, I will correct that because it's the fair thing to do. If I hire someone, I will pay them what I think the job is actually worth, not the least I can get away with by taking advantage of differences in expectation or in environments. I think fair labor laws ultimately end up benefiting the profiteer as well because you have more satisfied employees and a more productive workforce, but without such laws some employers might focus on the short-term and just pay the least they could get away with regardless of the long term implications. That in turn could drive the 'acceptable' wage down, and

no, i'm not an economist (of course neither are any of you), but there's no need for these "you really don't understand x at all, do you" type comments. whether to have a minimum wage is a real issue for economists, not something I just made up. Whether to take advantage foreign workers by paying them what is an acceptable wage where they live, while charging what is an acceptable price for what they produce where you live, is a current issue of complicated political & economic import. To dismiss my concerns as simply a result of my ignorance is unfounded. You can argue against me, but there's no need to put me down.
posted by mdn at 3:55 PM on April 26, 2006

You didn't just make a broad point, you made a very specific assertion that is simply wrong. Paying what an employer thinks is "fair" is not necessarily a "fair" transaction for any common definition of the word "fair". There's nothing invalid with hoping that there's a more socially just economic system than ours (US). But you can't make a simple proposal that doesn't stand up under scrutiny and just shrug that off and repeat that your goal is achievable and imply that the only thing lacking is the will.

By the way, I support an increase in the national minimum wage from what it is currently. However, I support an amount that is determined by a great deal of analysis that sets and justifies goals in terms of how it will affect different economic classes of people. I have zero tolerance for the know-nothinginess that says "whoopee! raise the mininum wage to $12 an hour and everything will be great!"

One of the reasons I have little patience for what you wrote and for things like it is because you don't need a lot of formal training in economics to evaluate whether "paying what an employer thinks is 'fair' will result in an increase in social justice" is true or not. You just actually have to think about it instead of treating economics like some magic fairy that grants wishes.

Another reason I have little patience for a certain kind of person asserting the "fairness" of a certain kind of economic transaction is that for me, just as much as or more than it is to them, this is a moral matter. I have very little patience for some extraordinarily privileged white person who unilaterarly decides what's "fair" and "right" for impoverished Mexican or Chinese workers, makes a decision about it, and then washes their hands of the matter.

And I most especially could not have more disdain, even disgust, for the supposed "liberal" or "progressive" who whines about how they or other Americans are losing jobs to outsourced foreigners. It's repugnant. In my view, it's an insult to the very nature of progressivism. And the worst, most despicable behavior of all is to be motivated by the loss of American jobs but hide behind the shield of feigning concern for the plight of the underpaid foreign worker.

In the same way that it's possible to do analysis that tries to find the most "just" national minimum wage (once we've agreed upon some quantifications for "more and less just"), it's possible to do an analysis about the optimum values with outsourced trade with regard to justice and things like wages, worker's rights, safety and health, child labor, and the like. And the one thing I know without a doubt is that simply denying that developing world worker that income is most certainly not "just". That's not taking responsibility, that's avoiding responsibility. It's a way for the rich, priveleged developed world consumer to sweep the problem under the rug and wash their hands of responsibility.

Europe and the US did not gain their wealth "fairly". Not even close to it. We did not gain our wealth simply through efficient market economics. We gained it by literally stealing wealth (in the form of economic resources) from what is now called the "developing world" and with our own resouces, building on that. I have zero sympathy for the developed-world worker who loses a job to a developing-world worker. "Hurrah!", I say, and hope for more like it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:19 PM on April 26, 2006