Just One More Add-On

A short item, followed by one mighty long item, about the perils of moving about the country, & a clarification thereof (her commentariat must be dullards/economists, or overly-sensitive upstate New Yorkers tired of condescension from the downstaters) & then we come to Megan using those big ol' economist words ("Cost benefit") & again demonstrating why we just don't think she deserves to be at The Atlantic:

There is actually an interesting underlying point to yesterday's
post...

Great Gobs of Goo, stop being coy, just come right out & admit that you're not much of a writer. That's the first step, you must acknowledge that you are powerless & not very competent. That your previously expressed desire to "write fiction" was more from a desire to lead a romantic-sounding life than any specific ability or talent. That what you post now is not, in many cases, verifiable, & that the conclusions you draw are dependent on statistical interpretation. That the very methods of gathering the statistics are the subject of debate. Enough. We can't give away all the 12 Steps for Fictional Economists. No one will show up at the meetings if we tell everything.

There's always a tradeoff [sic] between cost and service, and what you want is something that maximizes the return on your customer base. So companies periodically have an incentive to push the envelope, to see how badly they can treat you before you'll walk.

I know, I know, I'm a libertarian, I love the market? [sic] Why don't I love this? Well, I don't unlove it, exactly, because it's certainly not unique behavior to corporations. Spouses test how far they can push their spouses, friends do it to friends, employees to bosses, and so forth. No one knows the limits of the human heart; the only way we can find out [sic] what they are is to grope blindly for them.

Yikes. Rather cynical view of the species (and of corporations, which are not members of the species, no matter their current legal status). Let's note two things here: Spouses & friends are (it is to be hoped) more or less on an equal basis. Employees & bosses (by definition) are not on an equal basis. Yet Ms McA. phrases it as if employees are always treating their bosses badly, pushing the bosses to see how far they can go before the bosses walk. Huh? Really, what Bizzaro™ world does she live in? The employee's the one who'll end up walking, or being escorted out by security. (Although it could be said that her typing may be pushing her Atlantic overlords a little.)
The second thing of note:

No one knows the limits of the human heart; the only way we can find out [...] what they are is to grope blindly for them.

So awful it bore repeating. Aren't we talking about "maximizing efficiency" or "utility" or some such jargon here? Just where does the "human heart" enter into this? We know what the "limits" of the human heart are; they are limits. We have to find where they are, not "find out what they are." At least she didn't split the infinitive, though that wouldn't make any difference to the Hallmark Co., where such a sentence (& sentiment) should have been submitted.

Compare & contrast:

The reason I wrote that post--other than a fair amount of righteous anger that I needed to use up somewhere--is that I shouldn't be the only one who has that redress.
[...]
I have no taste for revenge at all; past wrongs just don't interest me. But I do think that the cost of doing things like this should be a lot higher.

Another glimpse into the mind of McArdle. Perhaps she should use that "righteous anger" by revenging herself on its cause, rather than "using it up somewhere." But she has "no taste for revenge at all." Four items on the horrible experience? (Well, two of them explaining herself.) Past wrongs just don't interest her. History is bunk. Especially if said wrongs happened to someone else, or a different group entirely. Get over that slavery/Jim Crow thing, that's the past, it's all ponies & rainbows now, except of course you have to work very, very hard & make the right choices every single time, & if you make a choice she or her commenters disagree w/, well, too bad.

And the mention of commenters brings me to the actual interesting, underlying point to this item, her commentariat, who, as anonymous indicated in the comment on the previous item, react to her posed questions, & go off on a tangent from there. In this one, a story is told about someone who had a long wait in the drive-through line at a Mickey D's. The instant assumption, by all those who commented, is that it's the fault of those less efficient or "second tier" (whatever that means, possibly second shift employees, who must by definition be second tier because they're not working 9-5) workers, and some mumbling about "motivation."

Not once is it considered that there may have been equipment problems, late deliveries, poor scheduling by (gasp!) management, customers not fitting into the expected customer flow, maybe even a customer who keeps sending his order back. No, it's always inefficient, un-motivated employees:Like me. You have a problem w/ that?