Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Folly]

I think I just had a realization - the type where you suddenly make a connection between thoughts.  The discussion above about "difference-ism" and the immigration "discussions", and the wealth gap, etc.

I think a major component of the sentiments many have in those areas is that microeconomics is zero sum, even though macroeconomics can be non-zero sum.  So when people see anyone, especially of an "outside" tribe (be it color, creed, origin, whatever) enter their community they fear that instead of adding to the community, that "other" will instead displace an existing member of the community.

This is in fact rational to first-order observations: If you have a town that only has enough demand to hire 100 people, and another person comes in town, then either the new person doesn't get hired or one of the existing people gets replaced by the new one.  This is almost always true, because a single new member of a community cannot - especially in the very short term - add enough demand to fully create an entire new job.  But what about if the new person comes in and just starts a new business, providing competition?  Let's say there were previously 2 suppliers of whatever the new person is selling, and the new one comes in.  This means that the total demand for that good or service is now spread among 3 suppliers, not 2; all else equal, this means the two existing suppliers would have an immediate, significant reduction in business: instead of having 50% of the market, each would now only have 33% of the market.  In a small market this is a huge effect.

What I have never seen is any kind of policy that addresses this kind of community impact.  It gets washed away by the "big city" effect of mass media, and I don't think a lot of the discussion related to border towns addresses this.  Maybe it does warrant federal assistance to border towns or something to mitigate this effect.

The scenario you describe really has no specific association with racism, but simply applies to immigration of any shade.
And if each person created more supply than demand, I should think that would cause every human economic structure to collapse before it ever got started. It almost certainly must be the other way around.

There are of course many statistical correlations between race and behavior that could be observed and rationally acted upon. The problem is that humanity is generally not rational, and tend to overreact and people start getting hurt and killed. It's really in everyone's best interest if we just keep saying that race doesn't matter, and condemning anyone who dares to defy that maxim.

[Lord Shonus]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2019/08/08/walmart-mass-shooting-stores-removing-violent-video-game-displays/1962146001/
Walmart is now responding by removing violent video game displays from their stores. Their violent gun displays remain untouched.

They're removing all violent imagery, on a temporary basis. This is explicitly to avoid somebody mistaking footage or sound for an attack and panicking, out of recognition that people are on edge right now. Despite the claims of a Z-list wanna-be voice actor, game sales will not be changed.

[da_nang]

And if each person created more supply than demand, I should think that would cause every human economic structure to collapse before it ever got started. It almost certainly must be the other way around.

Production generally must surpass consumption to avoid societal collapse due to production shortages.

A worker w doing job j∈J can supply a good or service g∈G by an amount s(g, j) per year.

A person p of socioeconomic group e∈E consumes g by amount c(g, e) per year.

The number of workers doing job j needed to supply p's consumption of g is n(g, j, e) =  c(g, e)/s(g, j).

Total demand for labor generated by p is thus d(e) = Σ_∀g,j n(g, j, e).

For poor people, d(e) tends to be rather low (relatively) since they consume mostly highly automated goods and services, food primarily.

The net labor generated is q(e) = d(e) - k(e), where k(e) is the number of jobs taken by p.

A key point here is that c(g, e) and s(g, j) vary over time. The former due to economic mobility, purchasing power, and culture; the latter due to efficiency, automation, and worker utilization (most aren't working at their physical limits).

Generally, q(e) > 0, they "bring jobs". If q(e) < 0, they "take jobs".

[Trolldefender99]

A walmart employee insulted me lol. I could have reported it even if it was minor what he said, but didn't feel like wasting time.

But I complained to the employee that they were still selling ultra violent movies that are more violent than most of the games they stopped selling. He laughed and walked off, said to another employee that I must be a loser (said something right before loser but didnt catch it).

But I'll go back and tell them that they are still selling really violent movies, since they are against violence in games, these movies I've seen them selling and more violent than a lot of games they sold. Maybe I wasnt the first to complain to him about the violent movies, so I can see if that is the case how its annoying. But not very professional.

To post-edit add though, one of the movies even if its older I saw is kill bill. That has far more blood and violence than a lot of games. Like call of duty barely has that amount of blood (does CoD even have blood? haven't played in a while) and call of duty doesnt have body parts being chopped off and blood squirting everywhere. But that is just one movie I saw that was really violent, they have others that are along that line at my local walmart.

Maybe thats trolling just to go there and complain about their movies. But if so are so big on being against games, they should be equally so with movies. And since I'm disabled (I'm limited where I can go since in a wheelchair), not like I have anything better to do to make sure they stop selling those violent movies if they are so against violence in games.

[Trekkin]

But if so are so big on being against games, they should be equally so with movies.

It looks like they are, at least insofar as the current guidelines include removing any violent content from the background televisions in Electronics. Movies just don't get the same in-store advertisement, so there's less to remove in the first place. It looks like Sporting Goods is affected too, but again, guns don't get advertised like video games do. They also aren't changing what's actually available for sale, just the ads.

In a larger sense, though, what exactly did you think he was going to do in response to your complaint?

[Egan_BW]

Nationwide corporate policy is not a single random employee's Fucking Problem. They're there to work, not argue with you about a decision made by their boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss's boss, who neither of you have ever met or will ever meet.

[Trolldefender99]

But if so are so big on being against games, they should be equally so with movies.

It looks like they are, at least insofar as the current guidelines include removing any violent content from the background televisions in Electronics. Movies just don't get the same in-store advertisement, so there's less to remove in the first place. It looks like Sporting Goods is affected too, but again, guns don't get advertised like video games do. They also aren't changing what's actually available for sale, just the ads.

In a larger sense, though, what exactly did you think he was going to do in response to your complaint?

Well I'm hoping with my complaints they remove anything violent at all and my complaint gets noticed, especially movies that are often more violent than games. I find it hypocritical at how much people supposedly care about games and violence, but don't have any problem with movies that are often worse. Except some do, so kudos to them. But if walmart removes violent movies, then at least I know they truly care about violence instead of games being a scapegoat.

[Reelya]

But, the games aren't being removed from sale, isn't that what they are saying?

They're just removing the advertising, which includes game footage. But the same with violent movies, they're not going to be displaying those on all the TVs.

Also, FPS games do have an *arguble* higher level of similarity to shooting events than most movies do. FPS games look similar to constant GoPro camera footage from a shooter's perspective, whereas while movies may be "more violent" they not quite so incessantly "shooty" with all the sound effects nor do they have a first-person perspective from the shooters point of view. Showing Call of Duty footage with sound effects in-store all the time seems like it would scare people more than most movies, even ones that were technically more violent.

[Trolldefender99]

But, the games aren't being removed from sale, isn't that what they are saying?

They're just removing the advertising, which includes game footage. But the same with violent movies, they're not going to be displaying those on all the TVs.

Also, FPS games do have an *arguble* higher level of similarity to shooting events than most movies do. FPS games look similar to constant GoPro camera footage from a shooter's perspective, whereas while movies may be "more violent" they not quite so incessantly "shooty" with all the sound effects nor do they have a first-person perspective from the shooters point of view. Showing Call of Duty footage with sound effects in-store all the time seems like it would scare people more than most movies.

My walmart took out all the games. If its just removing advertising, they could have removed all the games temporarily.

Though looking back, I wouldn't want to be harassed as an employee for something higher ups did and have no control over. I should get a bus tomorrow and apologize to the guy. Just blaming games but not other mediums even if not in FPS shooter camera mode is dumb to me. But that had nothing to do with the employee.

[Trolldefender99]

Well now I feel really bad, been thinking about it...just a random employee I harrassed for no reason just cause was angry that everyone blames games and nothing else, when it wasnt even his decision. May even been a gamer himself.

[Folly]

I'm sure he's used to it.

[MrRoboto75]

people being dicks/utter idiots to retail employees is just another tuesday.

[Egan_BW]

And that doesn't fucking well mean it's okay to contribute towards it.

[wierd]

True, but it leads to "rude salesman syndrome".

Sorta like how police officers end up becoming power abusing assholes.


The odd apology, and friendly and helpful customer, can make a big difference.  Always be polite and nice to the store staff. They deal with a lot of bullshit, they dont really need more.

I would say that police need the same as well, but their ranks tend to come pre-stacked for power hungry asshole syndrome.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The pigs aren't brutalizers and murderers because people are rude to them, jesus christ.