This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Theory — the new unrealized capital gain tax is designed (or will have the effect of) forcing people like Elon Musk to surrender control of corporations resulting in PMC control instead of founder control.
As some detail, there is a proposed 25% tax on unrealized gains for the super wealthy coupled with a 44% tax on realized gains. So let’s say you own 10b of a 100b company. If you do nothing you will owe 2.5b of tax. But if you sell 2.5b, you’d actually owe more! So you end up having to sell a pretty big chunk of your stake. This means that before companies get really large founders have to sell a big chunk of their equity preventing super wealth. It also changes incentive structures for founders making them more likely to cash out.
Once they cash out, PMC will take control. PMC coexists with modern democratic policy. Therefore, the democrat tax proposals help ensure corporations are run by allies.
Perhaps you should be more specific than “PMC,” since most founders are, in fact, professionals and/or managers. Who exactly do you have in mind? Does this tax favor them, rather than just anyone who isn’t super wealthy?
“Preventing super wealth” sounds like a pretty normal Democrat plank. What does the extra theory add?
The distinction, which is hardly something novel so I'm having trouble believing these objections are offered in good faith, is the PMC are not entrepreneurs, they're employees.
Sam Altman was pretty clear that most of the startup founders Y Combinator funds come from PMC backgrounds. The original interview with Tyler Cowen where he talks about it is now behind a paywall, but this blog post has the key quotes.
Part of what Y Combinator has done (and Altman has also written about this at length) is to turn "founding a startup" into gamified meritocratic competition with a facially similar progression to moving through the junior-to-middle ranks at McKinsey or Goldman. Paul Graham (but not Altman) also did pitched early acquisitions as good for founders, which matched the McKinsey/Goldman pitch of "do this for a few years and move onto your real career with cash in your pocket and an impressive CV." The reason to do that is to make "found a startup straight out of Stanford" a more appealing option for PMC strivers, and therefore shift the universe of startup founders in a way which matches YC's comparative advantage.
I don't think salaried employment is part of what defines the PMC. Lawyers, accountants, and (in the US) doctors are core PMC members who (if successful) end up as owner-partners in their practices. Wall Street types get most of their income in what is in effect commission. Genuine entrepreneurship is exceptional for the PMC, but it is exceptional for everyone. And VC money is designed to de-risk entrepreneurship for founders so the amount of skin in a game a founder has is closer to the Biglaw partner who sets up his own boutique firm than the chef who remortgages his house to buy a restaurant.
Just as FYI physician owned private practice is very rapidly dying for a variety of reasons (including increased regulatory/administrative burden.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link