No, they're given some of their society's money, since they're a member of that society. That money doesn't belong to any individual, it belongs to society as a whole.
If you take money from individual A put it into a common pot and then give it to individual B then individual B is effectively getting individual A's money.
Like I take money from the company I work for, in payment for my services...
> put it into a common pot
I put it in my bank account...
> and then give it to individual B
I buy something from Amazon, say...
> then individual B is effectively getting individual A's money.
Then Amazon is getting my companies money? Erm, no. Once it's been paid to me, it's my money. That's how payment works. When you pay for a society's services, that money is no longer yours. If you're a member of that society you still get a say in how it's spent (not always the case: you might be from another society and just paying for market access) but it's not your money any more.
The company has a choice of not employing you though and it tells you exactly what work to do. Now if you force the company to pay, then yes your example confirms my statement.
Plenty of western countries recently seem to realise that its far cheapear to take in educated immigrants rather than pay the cost of raising and educating a child. It's most certainly a trend.
Nobody actually believes this in practice. I think we might actually make more progress by not trying to dress up collective purchasing and institutional charity as grand egalitarian gestures.
The more we discuss sexual harassment as a culture, the harder it is for me to navigate the precise definitions of the terms involved. I read these articles and I find myself wondering what the phrase "sexual harassment" means. Wikipedia defines it as so:
"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment
That is an easy enough definition to understand, and I don't think there should be any controversy over it being wrong. However, the term "sexual harassment" is often used to convey any type of sexualized interaction in a professional environment.
Sometimes that's wrong too. I remember that a certain prominent female member of our community complained that she received emails from male members that they masturbated to videos of her talks. Sending such an anonymous email is certainly not coercive, probably not bullying either. But it does seem understandable that she did not appreciate such emails.
----
According to wikipedia's definition of s.h., it is not clear to me whether, in the case of tipping, it is directly the customer who is guilty of sexual harassment or if it is tipping itself that is at fault. Is it not the very culture of tipping which implies "[the] inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors"?
14 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 49.1 ms ] threadLike I take money from the company I work for, in payment for my services...
> put it into a common pot
I put it in my bank account...
> and then give it to individual B
I buy something from Amazon, say...
> then individual B is effectively getting individual A's money.
Then Amazon is getting my companies money? Erm, no. Once it's been paid to me, it's my money. That's how payment works. When you pay for a society's services, that money is no longer yours. If you're a member of that society you still get a say in how it's spent (not always the case: you might be from another society and just paying for market access) but it's not your money any more.
If I did work for the company and then they refused to pay me, then yes, I would force them to pay. I would use the law to force them to pay.
Not justifying it, simply observing.
"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment
That is an easy enough definition to understand, and I don't think there should be any controversy over it being wrong. However, the term "sexual harassment" is often used to convey any type of sexualized interaction in a professional environment.
Sometimes that's wrong too. I remember that a certain prominent female member of our community complained that she received emails from male members that they masturbated to videos of her talks. Sending such an anonymous email is certainly not coercive, probably not bullying either. But it does seem understandable that she did not appreciate such emails.
----
According to wikipedia's definition of s.h., it is not clear to me whether, in the case of tipping, it is directly the customer who is guilty of sexual harassment or if it is tipping itself that is at fault. Is it not the very culture of tipping which implies "[the] inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors"?
Edit: actually we've had to ask you not to do this so many times that I've banned this account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14439986
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14435711
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206873
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13199294