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 -
What consensus*-defying beliefs did you hold that turned out to be right, and what consensus-defying predictions would you care to make now?
*in the most loosely defined sense--I just mean something that seems to go against the general public mood, not something you alone out of 8 billion people had a unique insight over.
Over the past few weeks, /r/technology has voted to the top numerous threads outlining deep-rooted issues with Amazon, from its trillion dollar market cap contraction, 11k layoffs, workers strikes and union-busting, and more recently, its Alexa division that's supposed to lose $10b this year.
Regarding the last headline specifically, I'm no superforecaster, but I've always avoided voice assistants and found the rest of the world's apparent eager adoption strange. I think my avoidance is potentially irrational: I generally distrust always-on-mics, but there is massive legal and reputational risk for any large tech firm to spy without court orders and there isn't a clear profit incentive to do it; my impression that the tech is clunky and dumb is probably 5-10 years out of date given all the improvements since; I also haven't identified a clear personal use case, but since I've never used it, I may well be missing out.
Now, there are plenty of goods and services that I don't consume that offer real utility to many other people. But I'd always thought voice assistants overhyped because I couldn't relate to just how much utility they were able to provide the average consumer and how profitable they are to their makers, considering how prevalent they are--new phones goading you into turning them on, perennial sales on voice gadgets, the cultural relevance of Alexas/Siris/Google Assistants/Cortanas/Bixbys etc. Like, I find the similarly free Maps app to be 100x more useful, and yet no one tries to shove Maps down your throat, maybe because they don't need to do it considering how useful it is. And so, while I don't share the fairly obvious undercurrent of anti-Amazon schadenfreude on /r/technology, the news that Alexa is actually failing badly and has always failed badly as a business investment comports with my preferences, and that's reassuring.
I recognize it's super hard to actually predict the future with real stakes (say, a financial investment), or else we'd all be billionaires. And left ignored are the many more incorrect forecasts that I/we don't write/talk about. Still, it's fun to casually celebrate moral wins, and I think useful to constantly tinker with your mental models based on new data points, especially when it relates to things that you strongly disagree with the rest of the world on. So what examples can you think of?
P.S. A couple more random and completely inconsequential things that I turned out to be right about:
About a year before COVID, someone very senior at work pointed to Peloton as an example of an exceptional business model, saying that it was able to earn a huge premium thanks to the self-actualization provided by in-store sales reps who supposedly had sophisticated scripts that effectively bucketed leads based on demographics data etc. that resulted in outsized closing rates. I was skeptical, but its valuation kept on skyrocketing so decided to believe it. It now seems my skepticism was warranted.
I've always held a grudge against Grubhub since back when it was the dominant market share leader in food deliveries circa 5-7 years ago. Can't remember the exact reasons why, but it was probably a combination of what I felt to be dishonest or dark pattern UI/UX for its end users, stuff like defaulting to outrageous tipping % to trick/shame users, or applying that tipping % to the grand total instead of before taxes and fees, or a sanctimonious interview given by its CEO. I'd always thought its dominance was unsustainable because of these red flags, and did enjoy a healthy dose of anti-Grubhub schadenfreude as its valuation cratered and market share dwindled.
And a couple of consensus-defying (again, very loosely defined) predictions:
Asians in the US will go reliably majority conservative by the 2030 midterms (okay, it's not a crazy claim, but most pundits focus on Hispanics and Blacks shifting away from Dems, and largely ignore Asians; also, I've thought Asians were overdue to vote GOP for probably a decade now, which probably actually means my prediction has been very poor considering this hasn't materialized yet).
Blended salads will go mainstream by 2050--that is, people will blend up what is very obviously originally a salad based on the ingredients (and so different from today's veggie smoothies) and drink it for efficiency's sake.
I think I was one of the first people to say that being outside was probably not only safe but one of the best places to be during the pandemic. I was also one of the first to argue that the lockdowns and masks would likely go on for a lot longer than most people realized. I also predicted the reversal of most remote work.
Current consensus defying beliefs:
current efforts to fight climate change are causing more harm than good. (75%)
congestion pricing is very good (99.5%)
there might not be a recession within the next year (50%)
What do you mean by "very good?" The objections I've heard from left-ish friends is that it prioritizes rich people, which is both true and also exactly the point. People whose time is worth more don't have to waste as much of it in traffic, and in turn everyone else in the city gets their taxes offset a bit. Deciding whether this is good or not depends entirely on how the good is measured. How would you measure it?
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/loc16y/congestion_pricing_is_an_underrated_and_poorly/
More options
Context Copy link
It's also just good to prevent overcrowding. Highways reach a congestion inflection point where each additional car results in less throughput (fewer people-miles delivered per hour) and that's a classical tragedy of the commons. Even allocating space by lottery would be better than letting everyone on. (Which is not to deny that an auction is better than a lottery, just that preferring the wealthy is only part of the benefit.)
This podcast on congestion pricing was really good. Good in the way that it clarified some unique aspects of the problem in my mind that I hadn't previously understood. Primarily, one issue is that there is no mechanism for the money acquired from the people willing to pay to access to road to end up compensating the people who choose not to use the road because of the price. For many other goods, this isn't as big of an issue. If there is a shortage of apples, it's good to allocate them to the people most willing to pay, but the other folks don't feel as much like they just lose out entirely. There are probably plenty of folks willing to bring a plethora of oranges to the market, and while they're not the same, I mean, eh?
Whereas, having more roads is valuable to people. So if the default solution is "just add a congestion price; that'll fix the problem; don't need more roads; screw the people who can't afford it", it's going to be tough. Those people still really want roads and access to them. They probably can't just go buy a close substitute. Their only real hope is to lobby the government to build more roads, but if the accepted solution is "just add a congestion price; that'll fix the problem", then it'll be more difficult to actually accomplish that (after all, the 'problem' was 'solved' by the congestion price!).
The hypothetical ideal would be if we could magically take the money gained from congestion pricing and give it to the marginal consumers who will now choose to not drive because of the price. That would provide them some compensation for their loss that could replace the hopelessness of wanting to lobby for more roads, which would greatly ease the tension/discontent (it would make the political fights over building/not building new road capacity less contentious, because there would be less of a cliff in loss-of-value), while still allocating road usage as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, IIRC, the podcast basically left this point with, "...and we have no idea how to actually implement something like this," and I agree. Simply slapping a congestion price on it might be the least bad solution that we've currently tried/figured out, but the nuance here leaves room for hope that we can devise something better.
They are compensated as long as the money is spent on something that benefits them. It could be spent on some public service, given back as a rebate, or used to lower taxes.
The money can be given back in a targeted way. It could be given to poor drivers such that no one won't be able to afford the congestion charge and everyone will be better off.
More options
Context Copy link
Totally disagree. If you think it's an injustice if some people aren't willing or able to provide valuable enough labor in the labor market to entitle them to consume enough scarce goods and services, then we can have a social safety net. But it's economically incoherent to argue that the specific dollars that we collect when we auction off access to a fundamentally scarce service (even if it's a government provided service like roads) need to be handed to people who don't use the service.
I'm 100% on board with not screwing with the price signal in an effort to try to redistribute wealth (if you've ever listened to EconTalk, you should be convinced of that), but this isn't that.
The core observation is that when I sell a scarce good, say an apple, to you, I'm giving something up - the ability to use the apple. But what I'm getting in return for giving that up is money. That's what makes it an exchange.
In this case, that two-sided thing isn't happening. The people who are giving up the ability to use a scare resource are not getting something in exchange for it. It's weird, because the process is being mediated by a gov't who gets to 1) set the quantity of roads, and 2) set the one-sided price for them. So, it's simply not an actual exchange that follows the normal principles.
Instead, the people who are giving up their ability to use the roads view it as purely an imposition of government choice to force them off the roads, with no benefits (only pure costs) coming their way. Does it need to be the specific dollars that are collected by the congestion tax? Not necessarily. But further fundamental theorizing needs to happen to figure out how to structure the system so that all parties are properly incentivized to desire that the gov't build the efficient number of roads and charges an efficient price for it. Without these incentives done properly, we've already botched the price signal's ability to regulate the number of roads/price for them (it becomes a matter of pure political power), without even having the motive of trying to redistribute wealth! We're already causing the very problem that you're now desperately trying to avoid!
They aren't giving up the ability to use the roads any more than you'd be giving up the right to eat an apple by not purchasing the apple.
Should the apple industry be taxed so that the proceeds can be specifically distributed to people who have chosen not to purchase apples?
They could view it any number of ways, but idiosyncratic views don't make good policy arguments.
That's because it's possible to not purchase the apple.
Roads are not entirely funded by congestion taxes placed on road users, even in this scenario. You can't avoid paying for the road.
The government also used eminent domain to build the roads, which is inherently a non-market activity, and its police powers to control road usage, and central planning to decide where to build the roads. Apple sellers lack this power, and we only give the government the power to do this as part of a bargain which includes the government letting us use the roads.
More options
Context Copy link
In your scenario, whence my right to eat the apple in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to talk about "giving up" a right that never existed.
No. The apple industry is giving up their use of apples in favor of money, so their incentives are properly aligned.
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
When the Chinese needed Beijing not to be a smoggy dystopian hellscape for the Olympic games, they barred people from driving on a license plate basis. It's quite the elegant way of handling these sorts of things.
Rationing some scarce, car related resource, based on the licence plate has occured many times.
Ah, well. Fair enough. I'm not old enough to remember the 1970s.
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
Where are good statistics on the reversal of remote work? That still seems very much up in the air. Office vacancy is still high in the flagship coastal metros, though I hear offices are fuller in the heartland.
I've had uninterrupted remote work since March of 2020 (which included switching jobs) so at least for me it's all alive and well. Incredible life-changer in fact.
I don't have any good stats on it. I thought it was common knowledge that most people had returned to working in person. But maybe I'm wrong.
My impression is that it's a bit mixed. People are back from working 100% remote, but very few are back 100%.
But perhaps this is what you meant?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could you expand on this? Curious as to what exactly you mean by this
Climate change is only expected to harm world GDP by about 4% by 2100 (the worst estimates put it at 20%), and the range of likely temperature increases has narrowed recently, for the better. A lot of people talk as though humanity is going to go extinct. Young people are even choosing not to have kids because of it.
In my work and personal life lately, I have seen an absolute take over environmentalist ideology. It produces huge amount of bureaucratic waste and endless non-sensical decisions. There are endless complex government rebates and regulations designed to fight climate change. I meet so many people whose work is somehow related to some kind of government program to fight climate change. I haven't tried to quantify it. But I find it hard to believe it isn't going to greatly exceed 4% of GDP in the next 77 years.
It seems to be taking on some features of religion, where people want to endure painful sacrifices to show their allegiance to a social cause. Just in the last few years, ridiculous and pointless inconveniences have been imposed and more are coming.
We have banned plastic straws and replaced them with soggy paper ones.
We have banned plastic grocery bags and replaced them with paper bags that rip and dig into your skin.
We have have banned clear garbage bags to make sure people are recycling and composting even though this has been shown for some time to be wasteful.
In my city there explicitly deliberate attempts to increase congestion and reduce parking to discourage people from driving.
They want to ban gas engines by 2030.
There's even talk of banning oil fired furnaces.
All of this in a country which will likely benefit from climate change. A carbon tax (which we have already) would probably be beneficial, but instead, we get a hodge podge of minimally helpful and maximally inconvenient regulations.
Some of these may seem like minor inconveniences, but they are a sign that people are focused on showy sacrifice and not actual progress. This attitude pervades the entire movement and means it is probably going to be net harmful by its very nature.
There is no economic or rational thinking driving this. Every decision seems to begin and end with whether or not it helps the environment. There is no talk of trade-offs or how to most efficiently help the environment.
The government is using climate change as an excuse to meddle in every aspect of our lives for the worse. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has lately been making up nonsense about accounting for climate risks in its regulation of the financial sector.
This is all very dangerous because something which has a far bigger effect on our future prosperity than climate change is very small changes to the rate of economic growth. A 4% decrease in GDP by 2100 is equivalent to a 0.05 percentage point reduction in economic growth.
But environmentalism has become something opposed to progress itself. It views our future as one where everyone's quality of life is worse. The enormous convenience of plastic and personal vehicles will be gone.
Do you mind if I link this from the Heat Pump culture war post? It's everything I was trying to say but better.
I have so many graphs of absurdities like Germany's "sustainable energy revolution" fueled by burning wood chips and brown coal, and all I can do is gesture in helpless rage at how evil I find it all.
Go ahead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not OP, but I believe the same thing, more or less, so I'll give it a shot.
"Renewable" energy is likely not a good long-term solution to our energy needs. It is very poor at providing stable base load power. At one point yesterday, something like 45% of Germany's power was generated by coal. Contributions from wind and solar were essentially zero. The very expensive renewable infrastructure built throughout Europe is only utilized to a small percentage of its capacity. Meanwhile, nuclear plants are being retired. We are treated to absurdities such as France being fined for not reaching its renewable goals despite having by far the lowest carbon intensity of any major European country. Or forests being felled in the United States to import "renewable" wood pellets for power generation in Europe.
A renewable power transition will require vast amounts of copper, lithium, and other base metals. It is very unclear where these metals will come from. As batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels age they will require disposal and replacement, meaning that this is not a one time cost either.
Various sources of power have different returns on investment. For something like natural gas, you might get 100x the energy from burning it than you need to acquire it. For solar, this number is much lower. Exact estimates differ, but the true number is probably much lower than overly-optimistic government estimates, somewhere in the low single digits. Building a less efficient energy infrastructure will stifle development in the third world and lower standards of living. Of course, people in China and India understand this which is why they are building new coal plants hand over fist. One new coal plant raised eyebrows as it was built to support the massive energy needs of the nearby solar panel manufacturing facility.
In my belief, nuclear power is the one and only solution to solving the energy crisis while preserving the environment. Sadly, the environmental movement has prevented nuclear energy from reaching its full potential. In my opinion, organizations like Greenpeace bear a higher share of responsibility for climate change than oil companies like Exxon.
I'm sure I'll get pushback on a lot of this, and I could do a better job with citations, etc.. It really deserves an effort post but buried in the thread this feels like the max level of effort that can be justified.
Yeah, I agree with you on all these points. As an environmentalist it often feels my biggest opponents are other environmentalists. : (
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