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 -
I think the macro answer is kind of alarming.
We know that, stretching back to about 2014 through to the present, a disproportionate source of growth in core stock indicies like the SP500 has been tech stocks. Wall Street loves growth. The retail story is that FAANG etc. has created all of these wonderful new innovations and so, wouldn't you know it, of course they're driving economic growth.
My own (poorly researched) pet theory is that there was no alternative. Here's the BLS list of output by major sector of the economy.
"Tech" broadly speaking is hidden in a couple different areas here; Information, Professional services, Management. I don't think that matters. What does is that most of the other large categories are highly, highly regulated; finance, health care, education, utilities, construction, education. Government itself is a major "contributor" to the economy. The two large "trade" sectors mostly reference both everyday and durable goods that people just buy through the course of life; laundry detergent and food all the way up to cars and refrigerators.
So, my theory boils down to; it was so hard to really grow in any non-tech industry after 2008 because of regulatory burdens stretching back to the early 1970s, that the only place for investors to put their money (and, remember, money was cheap for a long time after 2008) was in "tech" because it was, and still largely is, un- or under-regulated. This may be changing with AI hype, but the theory, I think, isn't totally without merit.
Some of those tech investments were legitimate and make real money. Others were goofy nonsense that still make negative money to this day. But, when there's no alternative (and rising inflation (!)) you have to play the game even if it's a very dumb one.
Where this gets more shitty is that employment appears to be growing most in sectors that are heavily tied to gov't spending. Healthcare, education, and gov't. To me, it sort of looks like somewhere around 20% of "professional" workers are making their living through a complicated chutes-and-ladders rearrangement of tax dollars.
More options
Context Copy link