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 is the liberal argument for why the free market doesn’t solve the problem of “looked over” minority applicants?
If there were a number of minority business applicants who felt looked over in hiring and not adequately promoted, why wouldn’t they want to form their own business? For instance, they can simply form their own trading company. Ostensibly, if the problem is so severe as to warrant large scale national discussion and policy change, there must be hundreds of thousands of minorities capable of making way more money than they currently make if only they are hired properly and placed in the appropriate position. Importantly, they would be making money for anyone who invested in the business. As there are already exorbitantly wealthy minority investors, shouldn’t this be occurring? And if the liberal theory were correct, wouldn’t this just be free money for everyone involved? All you would have to do is establish a trading firm made up of whichever minority applicants are being discriminated against.
As a gratuitous example, if Goldman Sachs weren’t hiring Korean PhDs to work on algorithmic trading, someone could swoop in and make free money just by hiring them. Or better yet, a Korean investor could help someone start their very own Korean version of Goldman. We saw something like this with physics PhDs; someone realized they would be exceptionally good at applying their intelligence to understanding the market mathematically, and those who hired them made bank. Now everyone hires them.
So if I were a female trader, or even better, an Afro-Caribbean female trader, and I were not placed in a position which maximized company gains, I would just need to collect together a few dozen others in a similar position and start my own boutique shop with investment from African and/or female investors, of which there are thousands. This should be an obvious decision for everyone involved. It would be a day 1 decision. It’s how non-minorities often decide to start their own business, feeling like they could be better off starting a new organization. A relative of mine started his own company with some colleagues when he felt he wasn’t being optimally placed for his own economic gain (and the company’s, given that he simply left and took clients). It’s also how, for instance, Jewish Americans involved in banking were able to start their own companies — in some cases being hired by the majority who saw their value, in other cases starting their own companies having realized their own value.
Put another way, why on earth are women and Native American and Black traders who feel discriminated against not forming their own boutique firm with the investment of progressive millionaires and even billionaires? It’s free money! And half of all retail investors could invest in the enterprise (the Progressive half). The Portland school district could put their teacher’s retirement funds into their hands, knowing it’s the greatest bang for their buck. It would be like finding an undiscovered Ivy League school, churning out Yale-level talent without anyone realizing it. Why are we not hearing the success stories of all female or all-Latino or etc trading firms?
Finance has tight margins. Finance also has a healthy immune response against anyone claiming to have a magical edge. “African and/or female investors” have no reason to assume the gains from less-biased hiring outweigh the costs of running a business on idpol.
Also, it’s definitely an EEOC violation.
Instead, you would expect to see more idpol maneuvers where the cost-benefit is better. Social interactions score highest—the least material cost coupled with the easiest return on investment. Bonus points if the audience is already predisposed to such a signal.
Hell, you could argue we do hear about success stories. Immediately followed by angry Motte posts about how woke pandering is ruining entertainment and/or advertising.
You don't need to "run on idpol". You can just keep in mind that everyone else undervalues the group, then hire purely on cost/quality, and you'll still end up ahead.
Also you're assuming running on idpol has net costs - in the current environment it seems like it has serious marketing advantages.
The OP was definitely talking about
That ain’t happening without selection pressure. Likewise, the “Progressive half” of retail investors would be leaving money on the table if they opted out of the vast majority of the market.
OP was talking about undervalued people making their own company. They're all female/minority because that's the reason they're undervalued.
If women are as undervalued as is claimed, the best candidate for a given budget and the cheapest candidate of a given quality will pretty much always be a women. So you don't have commit to only hiring women to end up with all women - it's a natural consequence of optimal behaviour.
Investors are always opting out of a majority of the market they consider less profitable - profitability just usually isn't as clearly demarcated. The point is that if the claim is true, everyone else is leaving money on the table - so the rational move is to go to the part of the table where the money is lying and pick it up.
Even if you're right, that's a nitpick towards the OP, not a rebuttal. There's still money to be made if you let in the occasional white male who doesn't want more money than he's worth.
The basic principle is plausible. If women only make 50% as much as men for the same job and skill, hire at 51% and clean house. Mission accomplished.
There are just so many confounders!
So when OP asks where are all the all-female firms, I think the answer is “insufficient supply” or “fuzzy wage information” or “labor costs less than capital.” The distributions of male and female cost are too close to make an all-female strategy competitive.
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