|
Thanks!
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Is there a name for something like the sunk cost fallacy in reverse? If someone thinks they got a great deal, or got something for free and that justifies spending more on that thing in the future, is there a name for that?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is there a name for something like the sunk cost fallacy in reverse? If someone thinks they got a great deal, or got something for free and that justifies spending more on that thing in the future, is there a name for that? edit: upon googling, it looks like another "reverse sunk cost" is when people sell an "asset" below its worth because the upside has disappeared, they've already taken a bath on it, and they just want to sever any association with it. That's not really what you're talking about, though. Maybe they should call it a "fuuuck this" effect 
pangstrom fucked around with this message at 22:37 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Is there a name for something like the sunk cost fallacy in reverse? If someone thinks they got a great deal, or got something for free and that justifies spending more on that thing in the future, is there a name for that? Escalation of commitment? A neat example where that happens is the dollar auction
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Escalation of commitment? I like that. I hadn't seen that example before, but it's not quite what I meant. In my example people were more inclined to spend because of past gains rather than because of an actual opportunity cost or past expenses. pangstrom posted:"House money effect" is the closest thing I know of. House money effect seems pretty close -- probably good enough -- to what I want. In fact, it's probably better if I just restructure my argument into those terms. I like that it works as an extension to the lost ticket pseudoparadox used to illustrate sunk costs. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Some guy on my friend's Facebook was whining up a storm about how the minimum wage kills teenage jobs, so I dropped the Card study from the OP. For some reason, he suddenly stopped responding despite being quite active in the conversation just a few minutes earlier.  So thanks OP!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Furthermore, it's ok if some teens leave the workforce. If a 16 year old is no longer working 20 hours a week to support his family, he might have a little more time to focus on his studies or learn a skill that will help him for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Some guy on my friend's Facebook was whining up a storm about how the minimum wage kills teenage jobs, so I dropped the Card study from the OP. For some reason, he suddenly stopped responding despite being quite active in the conversation just a few minutes earlier. Did you ask why he's so in favor of child labor?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Was talking with a friend, had trouble jiving the idea of a free society and mandatory voting. Granted, I was taking the right tack of "what can be done to make it easier to vote" but he just kept countering with a hypothetical citizen that just didn't want to vote. How do you argue that without throwing the citizen in jail and forcing them to vote?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Was talking with a friend, had trouble jiving the idea of a free society and mandatory voting. Granted, I was taking the right tack of "what can be done to make it easier to vote" but he just kept countering with a hypothetical citizen that just didn't want to vote. How do you argue that without throwing the citizen in jail and forcing them to vote? Well...is that what you want to commit to when you say mandatory? If so, then own it and also recognize that it doesn't quite jive with the idea of a free society. It might still be worth it for <reasons> but reasonable people will disagree on that. Or you might moderate a little and focus on wanting to do everything possible to make it easier to vote and to encourage people to do that. In that case voting isn't quite mandatory, and that's ok, and the hypothetical citizen can do whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
You don't. If you're taking the line that individuals need to enter the voting booth (or return the voting card, etc) as part of their duties in maintaining a democratic society then it's the same as paying taxes and needs a similar level of systemic coercion for it to operate.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Was talking with a friend, had trouble jiving the idea of a free society and mandatory voting. Granted, I was taking the right tack of "what can be done to make it easier to vote" but he just kept countering with a hypothetical citizen that just didn't want to vote. How do you argue that without throwing the citizen in jail and forcing them to vote? I can't see a problem with mandatory voting as long as you are permitted to cast a ballot of no-vote. The idea is that voting is a civic responsibility, and making it mandatory helps in two ways: The first, more obvious but (in my opinion) less important thing it does is force individuals to fulfill their civic duty. The second, less obvious purpose is that it makes it much harder to interfere with other people's ability to vote. If the line to vote is 4 hours long, it's tempting to just go home. But if you're facing a $50 penalty, that's 7 hours of work at minimum wage. Not only are you going to sit in that line, you're going to be mad at the incumbent officials for failing to provide adequate voting access. It motivates the people in power to make voting a painless experience. Basically, it turns civil rights abuses that are really easy to ignore and rationalize away into urgent problems. Canceling bus service on election day is bad when it deprives people of their ability to vote, but when you've also hit them with a $50 penalty, that makes it urgent.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:How do you argue that without throwing the citizen in jail and forcing them to vote? "You don't want to vote? No problem, that will be $50 please"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"You don't want to vote? No problem, that will be $50 please" Sort of a reverse poll tax. Only the rich deserve to choose whether they vote.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I can't see a problem with mandatory voting as long as you are permitted to cast a ballot of no-vote. I can, it forces people to go out of their way to cast the no-vote.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Was talking with a friend, had trouble jiving the idea of a free society and mandatory voting.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sort of a reverse poll tax.  But what if the poor want to be disenfranchised  They do I tell you, they do! (The fee is waved if you have basically any reason beyond "I don't want to" and you can submit a blank ballot. You might as well complain about having to fill out a W-4 to claim exemptions from withholding if you're going to bitch about this) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good minimum wage debate resources?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Does anyone have any good minimum wage debate resources? Research typically finds that minimum-wage increases result in very small prices increases and have no clear effect on employment. Good article on employment effects: Minimum Wage Laws and the Labor Market: What Have We Learned Since Card and Krueger's Book Myth and Measurement? Good study touching on prices, which found a $12/hr Walmart minimum could be completely paid for by a ~1.4 price increase, which would cost the average shopper $12.50/year: (PDF) Living Wage Policies and Big-Box Retail: How a Higher Wage Standard Would Impact Walmart Workers and Shoppers Accretionist fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:Probably because those ideas are incompatible. A society that has mandatory things is not free. A society that makes certain things mandatory is clearly better than a free society. Voting could be one of those things (I personally don't think so, at least not without broad reform), but making voting mandatory indisputably reduces freedom. You correctly realise that (by your liberal definition of) free societies aren't nice places to live but also by that definition a free society cannot exist. Multiple numbers of individuals cannot all exist in a state of absolute freedom; either one is an undisputed god-king of all the others, giving them no mandatory restrictions but many restrictions for everyone else, or some mandatory restrictions apply to everyone to allow them to function as a group. Once you're willing to move from the liberal conception of freedom as total individual autonomy towards a social conception of freedom where the agency of the many means freedom it's more than possible to place mandatory restrictions on someone to increase freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
But the simplest method is to just not require voting? There is no good from forcing people to vote, there is only good from making voting easier and more accessible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:But the simplest method is to just not require voting? There is no good from forcing people to vote, there is only good from making voting easier and more accessible. The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc. The right likes to cast voting as a privilege so they can disenfranchise people and then blame it on them for "not trying hard enough" and not "making voting important enough". The other justification is the paradox that your individual vote is unlikely to change the outcome of the election so any individual cost (like a few hours at a poll queue) means you are individually better off by not voting but collectively worse off if a significant number of people come to that same conclusion. Imposing an individual penalty lines up individual and collective interests so people actually go to the polls and vote for a government that truly represents them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc... Which is handily disproved by the fact that plenty of people in mandatory voting places like Australia can still have trouble getting to the polls? Mandatory voting does absolutely nothing to prevent barriers, it only punishes people for failing to get past them, if it's enforced.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc. The right likes to cast voting as a privilege so they can disenfranchise people and then blame it on them for "not trying hard enough" and not "making voting important enough". How does it do this? People without IDs are disenfranchised now. After the change, they could still be disenfranchised. Also, they'd be out of $50, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc. The right likes to cast voting as a privilege so they can disenfranchise people and then blame it on them for "not trying hard enough" and not "making voting important enough". Or apathetic people show up and do whatever. Or people who don't want to vote fill out the "not voting because my grandmother died" card every election and nothing much changes except everyone's a little worse off because they have to fill out the cards. Or the institutional barriers go up anyway and poor people have to deal with it to whatever extent that's a thing that happens. Maybe we should make a mandatory voting thread.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Or apathetic people show up and do whatever. Or people who don't want to vote fill out the "not voting because my grandmother died" card every election and nothing much changes except everyone's a little worse off because they have to fill out the cards. Uh-huh 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The counter-argument is that mandatory voting makes it harder to put up institutional barriers to voting like closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, cancelling bus service, not giving employees time off, etc. The right likes to cast voting as a privilege so they can disenfranchise people and then blame it on them for "not trying hard enough" and not "making voting important enough". There is no reason a "you must vote" law and a "polling places can only be placed every x miles" law cannot coexist with each other. Or hell any sort of voter ID law either ("We can't confirm that you've voted until you present proper identification").
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
One can assume those problems would be exposed as the affected now have solid evidence for their grievances.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Did you ask why he's so in favor of child labor? Nope. I literally just posted a link to the study and nothing else, and it was my only contribution to the conversation. I was kinda disappointed he didn't even try to argue against it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Femur posted:One can assume those problems would be exposed as the affected now have solid evidence for their grievances. Which doesn't do anything at all. It would be especially cold comfort to tell someone who just had to pay a fine for not being able to get to the polls that now the way they just got hosed over is "exposed".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Which doesn't do anything at all. But crime and corruption depends on hiding it, so being exposed solves it? I don't understand your concern?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Femur posted:But crime and corruption depends on hiding it, so being exposed solves it? I don't understand your concern? You are proposing to fine the poor millions of dollars, collectively, in the hope that people might vote in a few years for people who'll remove the restrictions causing the fines. Do you not see what's completely stupid about this?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Hey how about we make it as easy as possible to vote, see where voting percentages wind up and then maybe after that do a compulsory vote law? Citizen participation in the political process is extremely important and voting is about the least you can do in that respect. Putting in the punitive measures before making it easier to vote just fucks over the same disenfranchised people you're trying to give a larger voice to.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You are proposing to fine the poor millions of dollars, collectively, in the hope that people might vote in a few years for people who'll remove the restrictions causing the fines. It's almost like fining people for not having insurance instead of just making healthcare a public matter so everyone's covered
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:It's almost like fining people for not having insurance instead of just making healthcare a public matter so everyone's covered Except without the part where anyone gets free healthcare out of the deal. It's literally an all-downside plan unless you just want to see people suffer.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You are proposing to fine the poor millions of dollars, collectively, in the hope that people might vote in a few years for people who'll remove the restrictions causing the fines. Yes, but it will only happen once, and a scandal will ensure vigilance in the future. There is now a direct cost associated with disfranchisement and motivation against apathy and withdrawal from the system. I am not the one fear mongering here, just saying this "tax" is like pretty much every registration fee that can be paid with time; it's not a big deal. I would be more worried that rich people can offer things valued above the fine to persuade voters. This is the problem when you assign numbers to things, people can now use unbiased math. Femur fucked around with this message at 02:53 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Femur posted:Yes, but it will only happen once, and a scandal will ensure vigilance in the future. There is now a direct cost associated with disfranchisement and motivation against apathy and withdrawal from the system. This reminds me of Libertarian "The free market will correct it after the first few hundred people die of food poisoning" logic.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Femur posted:Yes, but it will only happen once, and a scandal will ensure vigilance in the future. There is now a direct cost associated with disfranchisement and motivation against apathy and withdrawal from the system. But you're still planning to fine the poor millions of dollars collectively. This will be taking food out of people's mouths and messing up rent payments and all that. This is accelerationism at its worst. Plus what happens when people decide they like continuing to punish the people who aren't able to vote? People have re-elected governments that refused to expand medicaid for free! There is absolutely no reason to ever punish people for not voting.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Well, if laws aren't respected in your future, you've got other problems, like your immense xenophobia that is slowly turning blacks into criminals and then slaves. But they are 2 separate issue I think, but perhaps exposing this it all out will open a discussion again. If the rule of law cannot be enforced, your society is hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Femur posted:Well, if laws aren't respected in your future, you've got other problems, like your immense xenophobia that is slowly turning blacks into criminals and then slaves. But there's no laws not being respected in your plan. You're simply punishing the poor and mobility impaired. You're not going to get things "exposed", people already know the poor often can't vote, and they usually don't care about that or even think it's a good thing. People blatantly support Voter ID laws KNOWING that they make voting harder for a lot of people, especially minorities and poor people. What you're doing is like going back to 1955 and charging black people $10 everytime they get kicked out of a whites only business, in order to raise awareness of discrimination.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 03:07
|
|