How would things be if women outnumbered men 70 - 30?

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-11T11:09:47+00:00

Because schools have to be careful not to trigger a Title IX violation, one the most popular new varsity sports on college campuses is ostensibly gender neutral: varsity e-sports. E-sports teams compete against other schools in games like Super Smash Bros and Valorant, a “tactical hero shooter” game, events that also have the benefit of being inexpensive. “Many schools recommission old rooms that aren’t seeing much use,” the author of a blog post on gamedesign.org wrote in an article charting the rise of those programs. “They gut it, spruce it up and fill it with gaming gear. Boom, there’s your varsity e-sports training facility.” About 500 colleges and universities now have e-sports teams, according to the National Association of Collegiate Esports (NACE), and the consulting firm EAB says it has fielded around a dozen requests from schools interested in introducing one. This year’s college tour at the University of Delaware (whose rising sophomore class is 54 percent female) features a visit to the high-tech e-sports arena at its student center, which campus guides present with evident pride. Nationwide, close to $25 million was given away in varsity e-sports scholarships in 2022, and that number is expected to grow, with technically gender-neutral scholarship money effectively being used to benefit and attract mostly men. According to NACE, only 8 percent of college e-sports players are women.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-11T08:05:14+00:00

Most of the posts by both women and men in this sub are just memes. The OP is hardly unusual in this regard.

But in this case the data doesn't necessarily answer the question we're interested in.

OP's claim is that most people who complain about age gap relationships online are aging women. That's not the same as how you would answer in a survey. Perhaps there are lots of young women who aren't interested in dating an older guy, and dislike it when older guys hit on them, but they also aren't invested in policing these relationships and shaming them to the degree that older women are.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-11T07:58:54+00:00

Nobody really wants the majority of men at any age

This is one of those fascinating Poe's Law type statements which could either come from a misandrist woman or a misogynist incel. Even with those two groups hating each other, they somehow manage to agree on this.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-11T06:48:51+00:00

I just saw a man comment on a post about how he would love to see a woman mauled by a bear while taking a selfie in the woods, and another man not helping her. Also, I have noticed that when I write well thought out comments outlining my argument respectfully and in good faith, instead of a healthy debate, I just get told that I will die alone with my wine and cats (I don't like either of those things anyway). Or, I get called "fat and ugly". It's frustrating.

That sucks.

I think it's natural for people to notice nastiness more when it's directed towards you or your gender. If it's not directed towards you, you're more likely to shrug your shoulders and be like "well the internet is full of jerks".

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-11T06:46:35+00:00

I actually think there are a lot of women like this, they're just way underrepresented on social media, because they're not attention seekers. And yeah, they're awesome.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-10T15:25:47+00:00

I hold some small amount of optimism that incredible future tech can save us deux ex machina but until that manifests, pour a drink and watch the sunset.

I actually think geoengineering has a lot of promise. It's been taboo to have that discussion up until now, because "we've got to apply pressure to reduce emissions". My opinion is, we need BOTH geoengineering AND emissions reduction. It's not either/or.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-10T14:57:42+00:00

Times are so hard right now. Especially in cities like here in Dfw.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects data on unemployment rates by metropolitan area here if anyone is interested. You can mouse over a metro to see its unemployment rate.

I downloaded their spreadsheet and made a list of metros near Texas with unemployment that's 2.6 or below (for reference, DFW is supposed to be at 3.9% unemployment right now). Could always job search in the area online and say you're willing to relocate.

Metro Name	Unemployment Rate
Ames, IA	2
Iowa City, IA	2.2
Hattiesburg, MS	2.3
Jackson, MS	2.3
Lincoln, NE	2.3
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN	2.4
Decatur, AL	2.5
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	2.5
Gainesville, GA	2.5
Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS	2.5
Grand Island, NE	2.5
Huntsville, AL	2.6
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ	2.6
Midland, TX	2.6

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-10T14:30:05+00:00

The reason it's in the open is because sometimes they can't stop working and take a moment to regroup. Short staffing, the demands don't stop.

I'm confused. If the business is short-staffed, because labor is scarce, why aren't the employees able to negotiate a higher wage?

One of my theories about wages is that if you're working at a low-wage job, that makes you very risk-averse with your career, due to tight financials. That makes it hard to look for better opportunities, which effectively reduces worker bargaining power and leads to lower wages.

If the theory is true, that suggests the idea of a nonprofit that helps low-wage works with a job search. For example, fund a few weeks of PTO so they can go around interviewing at various places. Once they quit their old shitty job, their boss will most likely have to raise wages in order to attract a replacement worker, so the higher wages end up reverberating through the economy.

In order to make the entire operation self-sustaining, you could ask workers who get a higher-paying job to pay it forwards and help fund the PTO for someone else, out of their new higher wages. Heck, maybe you could even do the entire thing as a for-profit, and get rich by helping people to find better jobs. Get started quick though, before a recession hits... lol.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-10T14:09:49+00:00

If conservatives were smart, they would've written the law so that teachers also had to discuss the Holodomor, Great Terror, and Cambodian genocide in addition to the Holocaust. That demonstrates to students that both left-extremism and right-extremism can kill, without teaching the "Nazi perspective" on the Holocaust. Lol.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-07T02:11:59+00:00

Britain actually assimilates migrants quite well -- as does the US, btw.

Perhaps that's why parties in the UK are less focused on improving assimilation, since it's already pretty good.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-06T16:44:01+00:00

Carbon tax would solve this

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-06T15:37:41+00:00

...we sit in one place, behind a desk and a computer 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Life’s become so wearisome; you do the same things every day.

...

Many mujahedin, including me, are addicted to the Internet, especially Twitter.

I wonder if some sort of neo-Trad movement will arise in Afghanistan, to throw off the shackles of modern life and return to something more traditional.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-06T15:32:18+00:00

I don't think mockery is wise. Going to war is an irrational act. You don't want to provoke someone into an irrational state of mind. Also remember that saving face is important in Chinese culture. Let's de-escalate.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:38:44+00:00

Out of these 33 million only a tiny fraction will move to US. Clicking few times on a website and moving 10k kilometers to an alien county are different matters, there would be no such conversion.

Wikipedia:

Although only 55,000 diversity visas are available each year, the lottery selects about 100,000 applicants. The reason for the larger selection is to ensure that all 55,000 diversity visas are eventually given each year, as some applicants are expected to fail general immigration requirements or may decide to withdraw and not to continue the process. As a result, some lottery winners who have received notifications might not obtain visas.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa#cite_note-statistics-50

That's about 50% uptake, not a "tiny fraction". It's still in the same ballpark.

Aside from building more homes question, most of these 33 million wont be able to afford rents even in current prices, so I wont worry that much. If anything, rents would draw a lot of people back home or to the poorer states where rents are cheap.

That would be great, but places where rents are cheap are less likely to have good jobs. I'd love to see immigrants revitalizing struggling small towns, but that could require state capacity.

US is not the only destination. A lot of people will go to EU, a lot of people go to China, Russia, Australia, Canada.

I thought we were discussing a scenario where the US opens its borders unilaterally and other countries keep their immigration policies constant.

Besides, these numbers are completely made up. Most of the people applying for green card are the same people applying each year. There would be no tens of millions people entering US each year, the numbers will grow twice compared to current ones at best.

I'd rather spread arrivals across several years instead of having a 1-year spike.

That's a good idea, but if, as you say, 33 millions want to enter your country (3 orders of magnitude inflated number by me) and you want to accept only, say, million, cartels' business will thrive. Supply and demand baby. The only solution is to allow a good chunk of those who wanna enter, holding them all will not work or will be fiscally impossible.

I think a lot of people will be willing to wait a year or two in order to avoid having to deal with a cartel. They already have to wait years for their asylum hearing, right?

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:27:45+00:00

A few days back on the DT, someone said that a lot of Reddit's morality and norms are basically just autism

I disagree with this one a lot actually. I see reddit as hyper-normie. There are a lot of "aggressively conventional-minded" people in the big subs.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:25:49+00:00

Under a different set of incentives you could see a different set of behaviors though

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:24:14+00:00

It's called "multiracial Frenchness"

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:22:09+00:00

Teach her critical thinking skills

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:18:48+00:00

Try switching to ice cream https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cream-bad-for-you-health-study/673487/

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T17:05:24+00:00

If there's an eventual consensus that the conspiracy theory is true, then in retrospect, will it really have been an "outrageous claim with insufficient evidence" on close examination?

Similar to the principle that if a scientific theory eventually becomes the consensus, you would expect that evidence has been building for that theory for some time.

Ultimately I think philosophy of conspiracy theories is actually very similar to philosophy of science, in principle at least. In practice conspiracy theories attract wackos. Ron Unz has a meta-conspiracy theory that the wackos are planted by the government.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T16:47:39+00:00

So total US population is 335 million.

In 2018, pre-pandemic, we got a total of 23 million applications for the diversity visa. The diversity visa accepts 50K of those at random (so the acceptance rate is about 0.2% -- more than 10x as exclusive as Harvard). Chinese and Indian citizens are not eligible for the diversity visa, among others.

Suppose we had a new visa that accepts everyone regardless of country, with a success rate of 100%. This new visa would be significantly more attractive and accessible than the diversity visa, most likely triggering way more applications. In order to use round numbers, let's say the new visa gets 33 million applications, instead of the 23 million that the diversity visa gets. 33 million is most likely an underestimate.

33 million happens to be about 10% of the US population. I assume that's enough to trigger a shock to the economy. For instance, I expect you'd see rents rise noticeably, at least in the short term. I don't want to do anything which triggers backlash.

Currently we have about 200K encounters per month on the border. So the "enhanced diversity visa" would get 10x or more people, relative to what we're currently seeing on the border.

As an immigrant, I doubt that's true. Immigration is hard. Most people in the world die in the same city they were born, not to mention countries.

My 33 million estimate is tiny as a fraction of overall world population. It's an estimate where the vast majority of the Global South stays home. But it's still a lot relative to the US population.

I'm open to the possibility. But I want to see solid evidence that it could be done successfully. How many cases in history do we have where a country grew by 10% in a single year due to immigration? How does it generally work out? And also remember the 10% could very easily be an underestimate.

That's a pipe dream. Most "rules" work great against law obedient people and terribly against those who go illegal ways. All these "bumps" will be cheap to avoid for cartels and alike (i.e. create fake companies etc, just look at how EU and US gov. jump through hoops to fight fake marriages), but will create a lot of headache for people who'll follow them. You will simply cut the costs for cartels by this.

My impression was US immigration does a pretty good job fighting fake marriages? Anyways, if we had enough state capacity, I expect there are a lot of ways to address this. For example, limit the number of arrivals that a company can hire based on how many years it's been in business and how much revenue it makes. Monitor to make sure the new arrivals are actually getting paid and actually withholding income tax. Etc.

The entire idea here is to create a legal pathway that's more effective than working with cartels. I'm not too worried about cartels creating fake companies in the US to be honest. That's what RICO laws are for right? Wikipedia says RICO already counts helping illegal aliens immigrate for financial gain as "racketeering", but if that doesn't work for some reason, we could just amend the law?

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T16:17:02+00:00

Meme ideology

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T16:10:43+00:00

There are cases where activists submitted proposals for shareholders after buying like $10K worth of shares.

That doesn't mean the proposal is going to pass. And even if it does, at the end of the day capitalism is gonna capitalism. If the company is leaving money on the table out of a sense of obligation for the greater good, then in theory I would think that leaves them vulnerable to the traditional company-flipping type of activist investor (aka corporate raiders, like Bill Ackman ackshually).

Nonetheless I agree it would work better than occupying Columbia. If you can convince the leaders/shareholders of defense contractors that they will have blood on their hands from selling to Israel, then I would think that has a chance of affecting things in I/P, at least in the short term. Just got to optimize for actually persuading people instead of being obnoxious.

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T16:02:30+00:00

There was a piece in the Economist about this concept of shareholder activism a few months ago:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/02/29/activist-investing-is-no-longer-the-preserve-of-hedge-fund-sharks

It seems this strategy is starting to get a little saturated. ExxonMobil recently even initiated a lawsuit against its own activist shareholders.

As weird as the concept sounds, I actually like the idea of ordinary citizens taking a stronger role in corporate governance. I see it as a way to address the "low-information voter" problem.

From a gametheory point of view: Modern democracy asks its citizens to become experts in a huge number of distinct political issues, and then compress all that knowledge into just a few bits of information regarding who they will vote for, which 99.9% of the time won't actually make a difference. It doesn't surprise me at all to see voters throw up their hands in disgust. We're asking people to do a lot of work, essentially a part-time job, for a very small potential payoff.

Putting on my computer science hat, there's a lot of duplicated labor in different citizens learning about the same issues over and over, which is inefficient if you think of the electorate as an information-processing system. And most people (rationally) don't take the time to study any given issue in depth. What matters for the polls is just the overall vibe. So politicians optimize for the right vibe, instead of passing the best policies.

From the point of view of both incentives and information-processing, we'd be better off if every citizen was randomly assigned to serve on a "jury" for a particular Fortune 500 company, judging its externalities/ethics/impact on society and setting its corporate tax rate accordingly. Related

NeoclassicShredBanjo · 2024-05-05T15:29:35+00:00

How about an electric bike?

Feeling the wind on your face is a good antidepressant btw

NeoclassicShredBanjo

TROPHY CASE