
How to Escape from Immoral Mazes - apsec112
https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/01/16/how-escape-from-immoral-mazes/
======
FZ1
> Young people starting out in the labor market often have The Fear that they
> will never find a job or never find a good job or another good job.

Young people fear it. Older people know it.

> Quit.

Not everyone is a 20-something silicon valley kid with companies falling all
over themselves to throw money at them.

Hiring is effectively broken these days - especially in the software world.

If you're not from a top-flight university, maybe a little older, or in any
other way less flashy/attractive in the job market, it can take months or
sometimes years to get decent job interviews.

You can't just walk away from a decent income because idealism.

~~~
fctorial
I thought older people are more valuable since they have more experience.
There isn't much physical difference between 20, 40 and 55 year old people
unless something like alzheimer kicks in, especially in our field where the
job includes reading stuff and pressing button.

~~~
eli
That logically makes sense, but the reality is agism is a huge problem in tech
hiring.

~~~
fctorial
Reasons?

~~~
bonoboTP
The often cited reason is that young people are easier to manipulate and
exploit (overtime, passion, kool-aid about the company "mission" etc.), or
more charitably phrased are more "adaptable" and less set in their ways. They
have fewer responsibilities, no family etc. They are more idealistic and don't
have the same cynical/sour/realist/seeing-through-the-bullshit outlook that
older people have.

~~~
wtracy
They're also easier to negotiate down on salary.

------
knzhou
> What do you do if you find yourself inside a maze?

> Quit. Seriously. Go do something else. Ideally, do it today.

That's it, right there. The whole article could have been replaced with just
that.

I've heard people express the opinion that they have absolutely "no choice"
but to work at McKinsey, or some random hedge fund. I don't understand how
anybody can reasonably come to that conclusion. The worst case for people like
this is making only _medium_ six figures.

~~~
jandrese
That's practically poverty level after you factor in the Manhattan apartment
rent, yacht, private schooling, etc...

~~~
seisvelas
One way to avoid poverty in that case would be to not buy a yacht, for
example. Any amount of money is nearly poverty level if you spend it all on
luxuries.

Edit: I am dumb and completely missed the joke. Poe's law in action!

~~~
uoaei
That's the joke

------
cmhnn
I am convinced that people who write things like this don't believe
intelligence is genetic. You no more earned how smart you are than you earned
your race.

Wisdom? Determination? Scars? You can claim to earn or learn some of those.

Don't get me wrong, I am not aligned with the hnn society of smart idiots who
think Harrison Bergeron was a how-to manual. The genetic dice roll can be
cruel. I don't look like Clooney nor am I built like The Rock. But them's the
breaks. The only thing worse than that unfairness is the unfairness well
meaning and smart idiots would create trying to rectify the inequities.

Still, I am empathetic enough to be amused by rantings of the intelligent
regarding economic options when they seem to have not seriously considered
some other people are less intelligent and may really have less options.

In the abstract I will side with those who declare no one is trapped. But
there is a continuum.

You pretty much have to get me to Vichy France or San Francisco levels of
disgusting society before I advocate a waitress with a 6th grade education
just decides that supporting the evils of Cheesecake Factory is beyond the
pale and worth joining the resistance, the kid's be damned.

Seems to me some of these smarty pants could create a utopia for the lesser
folks who feel trapped by mortgage's, child support and other meaningless
pursuits instead of wasting their horse power on blogs.

~~~
imgabe
There is a genetic component, but nobody is born looking like Clooney or the
Rock. At the movie star level it is basically your full time job to look that
way with personal trainers, nutritionists, steroids, whatever you need.

~~~
cheese4242
I don't follow the Clooney example. Wouldn't he still look more or less the
same if he had become a pickle salesmen rather than an actor?

~~~
imgabe
He'd probably be fatter, you know from all the sandwiches he'd have to eat
taking out pickle clients on sales calls

------
hinkley
Minimalists and anti-materialists are fond of pointing out that your
possessions can end up owning you instead of the other way around.

What they tend to neglect is that when your possessions begin to own you, so
too does your boss.

Kids, medical problems and bad luck can all contribute, but we generally have
a very low degree of control over those situations.

~~~
newnewpdro
> Kids, medical problems and bad luck can all contribute, but we generally
> have a very low degree of control over those situations.

Bad luck sure, but kids are an entirely deterministic and preventable outcome.
Most medical problems are arguably preventable as well.

I agree regarding the link between possessions and employer leverage.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
That's not how it works with children. Unless you have abortion easily
available for poor people and sterilisation easily available for folks that
don't want children... you might not have a choice. If you are male, you can't
force stop an accidental pregnancy. Luckily, though, male sterilisation is
quite effective. It is generally more difficult for females to get sterilized
(especially if you aren't married and/or don't have children), it has more
risk of failure, is more invasive, and is more expensive. All other birth
control methods can fail - people get pregnant on the pill. Condoms break. And
so on. Your employer might not even cover birth control.

And these things don't even begin to cover things like rape, incest, and
underage pregnancy where a guardian doesn't allow abortion.

 _Children are not always preventable_

Other folks have already addressed the medical problems, so I'm gonna pass on
it.

~~~
newnewpdro
Unless we're talking about rape which is not how most children are produced,
sex is a choice with the predictable potential outcome of children.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
It is a ridiculous expectation to expect folks not to have sex, and as such,
not included. This is a basic urge of people, and while some folks choose not
to, most do not. If it were that simple, abstinence only education would
include coping skills to avoid rather than shaming and would have a much
better track record.

Not having sex is simply not a viable option for most people - especially so
within the confines of a committed romantic relationship. In fact, it is an
easy way to void such a relationship in most cases.

------
kazinator
> _How to Escape from Immoral Mazes_

Keep to the Right at all times?

Or else Left works, too.

Just don't vacillate.

:)

~~~
rantwasp
unless... you run into a moral loop

~~~
gliese1337
Well, then you weren't in a maze to begin with. Escaping immoral labyrinths is
a whole other problem!

~~~
JDazzle
Immoral labyrinths come with immoral minotaurs... how do we escape those
before they eat us alive?!

~~~
ebcode
You don't escape the minotaur, you slay it.

~~~
rantwasp
unless the Minotaur is the moral one and you're unlucky being in its labyrinth

------
ph0rque
So after 3 or 4 clicks, I ended up on an amazon.com page with the book on
moral mazes. Can anyone offer a short summary of what a moral maze is?

~~~
wtracy
The article links to this page, which offers a definition near the beginning:

[https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/how-to-identify-
an-i...](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/01/12/how-to-identify-an-immoral-
maze/)

FWIW, this author seems to use the terms "moral maze" and "immoral maze"
interchangeably, which makes their writing harder to follow than it needs to
be.

EDIT: On rereading, that page only offers an implicit definition of the term.

Basically, it's an organization that is steeped in perverse incentives. Most
individuals are incentivized to behave in ways that are detrimental to society
and to the long-term profitability of the organization, and the corporate
culture implicitly accepts this.

~~~
ph0rque
Thanks. I got to that page, clicked the "moral maze" link, and did not read
further (which I should have).

------
senderista
The article touched on something that's always bothered me about the
"effective altruism" movement: some of its adherents seem to think it's OK to
work literally anywhere as long as you contribute enough of your income to
worthy causes. That has always seemed incredibly dubious to me: make the world
a worse place so you can make it a better place!

~~~
retsibsi
It just comes from a focus on marginal effects (my replacement at evilcorp
will probably do roughly as good a job, and probably not give a large fraction
of his/her income to charity) and caring about actual outcomes for the people
you're trying to help, rather than your own personal purity.

Like everything, the approach can be abused (I feel fine about taking this
high-paying morally dubious job, because I'm earning to give... but oh wait,
now I have a family to support, and the cost of living is surprisingly high
here, and I've got to wear good suits and drive a decent car or my
professional reputation might suffer...) but a lot of people are sincere about
it, and it does make sense.

~~~
senderista
It makes sense only if you’re already a convinced utilitarian. Not all of us
are.

~~~
retsibsi
It's consequentialist reasoning, not necessarily utilitarian. And you don't
have to be a thoroughgoing consequentialist to agree that in a world full of
preventable misery, it's best to focus on actually preventing it, rather than
on keeping your own hands as clean as possible. (And realistically we're
talking about working for an oil company or a casino or something, not being a
Nazi prison guard.)

------
aalleavitch
Worker-owned co-ops are a cure for all of this.

~~~
badpun
Do you think that, for example, a worker-owned Intel could ever be a thing? I
think this model works only for simple businesses.

~~~
dirtyaura
Huawei is/was worker-owned.

~~~
teddyh
One could argue that Huawei, and all chinese companies, are effectively state-
owned.

------
greypowerOz
or, you know.. be the change you want to see.

I'm also cynical enough to think that taking all the "moral people" out of one
workplace / school / whatever and forming a "moral maze / company" will still
not be a utopia...

People are what they are...

