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 -
Well, I can't, because I'm not a finance genius who has devoted my life to picking stocks. My money is mostly in simple index funds, because (a) that's what everyone assured me was the smart thing to do and (b) those are simple and convenient for me to use as a regular person. My company 401k plan never offered me a "basically the S&P 500, but avoid stocks that overpay their executives" fund. Most other normal stockholders are in the same situation as me. I don't even get a chance to vote on proxy votes, since my share votes are handled by the index fund managers. And even when I did own individual stocks in the past, and I got a proxy vote as a regular stock holder, my vote was so small (a few shares out of billions at a blue chip company) that it didn't seem worthwhile to even mail it in. I had less power to influence them as a stockholder than I do to influence the US government as a voter, and that's a pretty low bar.
And most other players can't do this sort of thing either. Rich people might have their money tied up in stock for the company they worked for. Finance managers have to convince the rich people they work for that they're doing a safe, normal strategy. Hedge funds have to follow rules that mitigate risk for their institution. And most people just aren't interested in this sort of thing.
Ok, in principle there's room for some young Warren Buffet type to make his name by finding these companies, shorting them, and outperforming the market. But only to the extent that their excess compensation takes away from every other factor going on, and his efforts to short the stock would be countered by everyone else shovelling money into it. As long as the executives keep it below a few percent, it would be hard to notice.
But think about how far this has gone. It's no longer "the executives deserve this much money because it's what's best for the company." It's "they can pocket hundreds of millions without hurting the company in a way that anyone steps in to stop them." You could make the same argument for how a retail cashier could get away with stealing money out of the till, or how a middle manager could get away with embezzling from the accounting department, but for them it's illegal and there are protections in place to stop that sort of thing.
All of this to say- the market is not some omniscient, perfect entity. It's mostly efficient, but there are still plenty of efficiencies. I think there's a tendency among shape-rotator type people to assume that it's perfectly efficient because that makes for a much more elegant argument, but the reality is a lot more messy.
Also this:
I would argue that the executives, especially the CEOs, are being disengenuous here. They're not just some shmuck working behind the scenes, they act as the public face of the company, for both its employees and the general public. Their personal life reflects on the company just like a politician's personal life reflects on his country. When the CEO tries to make himself seem like a moral paragon when he's obviously just there to grab as much cash out of the company as he can get away with, that's going to demoralize every single employee and tank their performance far beyond the actual cash impact of his salary.
More options
Context Copy link