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 -
The 7 Habits of Highly Fertile People
I Background
Look into the comment section of any mainstream video or article on below-replacement fertility, and you will find a familiar refrain: it is simply too expensive to have children.
However, despite this common meme, the data do not bear it out. Plotting Total Fertility Rate (TFR) vs Household Income actually produces a U shape with peaks at household incomes <$20k and >$1m, and trough around $200k per year. 2012-2016, 2018-2022.
What is happening here?
My wife and I are members of the PMC, as are most of our friends. We are in our mid-thirties. We have noticed that our friends are branching into one of two forks:
Recently, I have had the opportunity to get to know well two families quite outside our social circle. The first is the family of a carpenter who makes $30/hour, lives in a rural area 45 minutes outside of a tier-2 city, stay-at-home mom, five kids. The other is an urban family, headed by single-mom who works as a receptionist at a low-end hotel (making, I would guess $20-30k/year), also with five kids.
While these families are superficially quite different, when it comes to childrearing, they actually have a lot of beliefs and habits in common. And, these beliefs and habits stand in stark contrast to those of my peer group - folks who are making quite a bit more money and yet cannot imagine affording five children!
I document them below, mostly for myself:
TL;DR: High-fertility families structure their lives in such a way as to make children extremely cheap and dramatically less time-intensive.
II Habits of Highly Fertile People
1) High-fertility families do not believe that every child needs their own room.
2) High-fertility families pay roughly $0 for education.
3) High-fertility families pay roughly $0 for kids' stuff.
4) High-fertility families pay roughly $0 for enriching activities.
5) High-fertility families start early. They have known no other adult life, besides being parents. Their tastes are quite modest.
6) High-fertility families pay roughly $0 for childcare:
7) High-fertility families pay very little for (and think very little about) healthcare
I am not trying to say that having five children is the only worthy goal in life. And, it is entirely possible that the progeny of the PMC will somehow be “better” than the progeny of the Carpenter or Receptionist - healthier, higher-IQ, more worldly.
III Policy Ideas for Increasing Fertility
It also occurs to me that, even if you cannot change the beliefs and habits of the PMC, you could still make policy decisions that increase their fertility:
1) Decrease the cost of housing.
2) Improve the public schools
3) Decrease the cost stuff
4) Enriching activities:
5) Starting early:
6) Childcare:
7) Healthcare:
For (2) I'd add "Provide more school choice". I live in a school district where the best public schools are barely adequate, but in Texas the state will also pay for charter schools, which makes a difference. Charter schools can't screen students by anything more than some combination of "the applicant is in our geographic area", "applicants with a sibling already attending get preference", and "random lottery", but it turns out that the implicit self-screening of "the parents are concerned enough with their kids' education to move schools" and "the parents are on-the-ball enough to be able to get kids to school without a bus driving to their house" is enough to concentrate the most motivated kids and avoid the most disorderly.
We may be getting vouchers for private schools soon, too, so we'll see how that works out. Support for a voucher program in general is at 55% among Texas Democrats, 65% for Texans as a whole.
The downside of school choice is more car traffic and less buses.
As a travelling technician, my quality of life is much lower during the school year. Urban planners trying to minimize car traffic hate this trampling of the commons. And a certain striver mentality is going to look down on parents taking shortcuts to go where the good schools are instead of applying "the grass is greenest where you water it" and actually getting involved.
It's all tradeoffs in the end. On the whole, I'm no fan of your solution.
Good example of the strategy I described here https://www.themotte.org/post/1405/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/285720?context=8#context
More options
Context Copy link
The grass, in this instance, doesn't grow nearly as quickly as my children do, and I'm not going to gamble their early education on the hope that I can unilaterally drag an underperforming school district out of the mire.
Who says it has to be unilateral? It's very unlikely you're the only one who wants better conditions. You may just not know your probable allies yet.
That's just it: I don't know who my probable allies are (or if they exist), and finding/mobilizing them will be part of my initially-unilateral effort. Meanwhile I have to live somewhere and send my kids to a school district today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your objection to school choice is traffic? Of all the trivial and unimportant objections to the greatest good.
I drive my kid to school. I pay taxes, a very small portion of which are spent on roads. I paid for these commons and I'll "trample" my kid to school through them. I'm also entitled to use of public infrastructure.
There are more. It's the first thing I thought of.
It's also a self-inflicted isolation from one's neighborhood, and that carries knock-on effects where it becomes harder to put down roots. Less chance to see the talents of your neighbors, less chance to share your talents with their families, less Slack in your systems to absorb actual shocks.
Maybe you don't value that as much as I do. That's okay.
You drive your kids to school and also they play with neighbors. It is not either or. There's a small park with play equipment hundreds of feet from my house. Most houses on my street have children. We know them.
When I was a kid I had to bike a few miles to public middle school and high school. Selfishly trampling on the public commons. I also had friends in my neighborhood. There was no exclusive choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that striver mentality is retarded and destructive and needs to be discouraged.
Correct.
Voice >> ExitExit >> Voice; you can't make your local stabby school much better but you can move to a non-stabby district.(Edit: damnit, got it backwards the first time)
For a certain income level & standard of living, yes. I know where the "good school districts" are in my state, and we don't earn enough to afford housing in them. Cheaper states are a net decrease in quality of life for commute time, job prospects, and quality of community. It's a local maximum with a lot of activation energy to find a new maximum.
I'm aware this is not your problem to solve. The incentives are greatest for me to make lemonade where I'm at, and uncover opportunities where I'm at.
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
More options
Context Copy link