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 -
Caps on high skill immigrant workers might be worth the tradeoffs, but I think we as a society should acknowledge they are serious tradeoffs.
Let's say the US has X amount of specialized talent and thus they can only do Y amount of productivity with in a year. If companies in (or investing in) our country are so productive and there's enough market demand that they want to do creation over Y, then limiting access to talent over X puts a cap on growth.
Now I know, the general response is "because those jobs should go to the locals!" but the thing is, talented local people already have jobs. If they're hard working and capable, then they're mostly already doing their part in achieving Y (or doing something else in another industry) because companies want them.
As any hiring manager knows nowadays, the job pool is mostly incompetents, liars, lazies, addicts, or otherwise unwanted because of a serious flaw. It's the same way that dating apps like Tinder are mostly used by the unpleasant and unwanted, the good ones are already picked through. Of course just like the apps there's often some amount of pickings but they're limited and get scooped up quick of course and we're still overall limited to Y production. Even during periods of layoffs, companies don't tend to fire their best talent, they fire the weaker ones so even picking through those is still trying to find a diamond in the rough.
Now maybe that's what we as a society want, jobs programs for the lazy drug addicted idiots being put in roles above their worth, and we're willing to sacrifice efficiency in key industries for it. And maybe it's worth it if we put hard limits on economic growth and only allow Y production no matter how much market demand exists. Maybe it's worth it in the same way that some leftists felt promoting some minorities above their skill level was worth it.
But that's a discussion with some hard tradeoffs is it not?
Main problem I see with this characterization is that laziness is both a relative concept and a habit.
Relative: Everyone is lazy compared to migrant who works 60h+ like an indentured servant because he/she has to. However, increases in GDP are supposed serve human flourishing, not the other way. I suppose that is the "trade-off" you are talking of.
Habit: Humans are habit-forming creatures. Live some time as unemployed and yes, most people will learn lazy unemployed habits that are hard to break out of. For this reason, it is quite important to keep unemployment rate low.
Another aspect is that habit-forming does not stop at unemployment. Majority of people are quite industrious when they find themselves in a positive feedback cycle and it is clear to see results of your work. It is how most computer games are structured, people play them for pleasure. Many corporate jobs, however, are structured so that easiest habit to form is, "do what you are told and don't make too much trouble for anyone, including yourself". I am kinda lazy employee these days, myself. Key was when I realized that my attempts to go above and beyond results in more work, no change in salary, any fruits were reflected in my managers' bonuses than mine, any failures were still mine to bear, and any path to making it otherwise was illegible. Of course my manager would rather have a "less lazy" migrant worker who has to go above and beyond anyway than reorganize anything.
Another thing: it is weird that pro-migration lobby has advocated for the need of skilled migration in nearly all developed countries (the US, Canada, the UK, near all European countries) despite the vast differences in population, resources, economic outlook, unemployment rates, and other policies. The US has 350m people and has a large, varied economy and resources, unemployment rate 4%, it could be self-sufficient, and they say, America needs 'skilled' migrants. Sweden is smaller economy, unemployment rate 9%, economy specialized to few key industries and services, they live and die by trading for other resources, but they also say (until perhaps recently), they need more 'skilled' migrants. Repeat for any country and any economic situation.
This is because of how political groups in one country feed on political groups in another.
That's why Japan has much less of this sort of thing. It's really hard to have influence when the country is thousands of miles away and speaks mostly Japanese.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link