Stories like this outrage me, but in the exact opposite direction of the intended outrage.
We're supposed to feel sorry for someone who was fired after 30 years of working at Taco Bell. (Italics below are blatant straw men that you should feel free to pick apart.)
Where is the reward for her 30 years of service?
Silly me, I thought it was the 30 years of paychecks.
But her 30 years of loyalty is an asset!
Is it? What possible use does a fast food chain have for N years of an employee's loyalty (where N > 5 or so)? If the idea is that she's accrued 30 years of being-good-at-what-she-does skills, then the two failed performance reviews that triggered her firing suggest otherwise.
But they made her cry! "I bawled for three days after I got fired."
I often choose my fast food based on whether the corporation in question makes its employees cry. It's right up there with food quality, price, and whether the franchise in question is on the side of the street where I happen to be driving.
(Flippancy aside, I really couldn't tell you when I had my last fast food joint meal. I didn't even remember to eat my free Tuesday World Series taco.)
Posted by Matt Bruce at November 9, 2007 11:24 AMIf you've been working at Taco Bell for 30 years, I think it's time to examine the choices you've made in your life.
Posted by: OTC at November 9, 2007 11:39 AMIt's sort of like what Nozick wrote about Newcomb's problem. Everyone gets an answer quickly, and thinks it's easy and you'd have to be daft to disagree; the only thing is that half think it's one way and half think it's the other.
I heartily agree with you here.
(BTW, re: Newcomb, you a 1- or 2-boxer?)
Posted by: Nate at November 9, 2007 11:41 AM2 boxes. (Free will is more plausible to me than {some combination of time travel and telekinesis}.) That will make a great blog post on a rainy day.
Posted by: me at November 9, 2007 01:25 PMSweet. Me too. There's some talk here of having a philosophers' soccer game, two-boxers vs. one-boxers.
Posted by: Nate at November 9, 2007 04:38 PM2 boxes.
I guess you'll only get $1000, assuming the Predictor is capable of doing an Internet search...
Posted by: Richard at November 9, 2007 05:36 PMAsk your one-box colleagues whether they cooperate* in Prisoner's Dilemma.
*- aka "don't talk," aka Friend in the old Kennedy game show
I think the case for PD altruism is slightly stronger than the case for one-boxing (but significantly stronger than a typical game theory student will probably think it is)
Posted by: me at November 9, 2007 06:08 PMI had not heard of Newcomb's paradox before reading these comments. (And then looking it up on Wikipedia.)
My take is that if I want $1,000,000 (or more) then I have to convince the Predictor that I will only take one box. This is obviously difficult since I will be tempted to take two boxes once the prediction is made, and the Predictor must know this. So I would try to remove the temptation, e.g. enter into a binding contract that if I take two boxes I have to give all the money away and have my legs broken. Hopefully the Predictor knows about the contract.
Posted by: Richard at November 9, 2007 06:59 PM