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 -
It's not that it's not literally the same coins, it's that people get out more than they put in. It was not earned, in the most literal way.
https://401kspecialistmag.com/social-security-taxes-vs-benefits-americans-take-far-more-out-than-they-pay-in/
The imbalance is mostly driven by medicare; social security is much closer to breaking-even or even losing you money if you are a high earner, although married couples get more under certain conditions.
Ultimately the scheme was designed in such a way as to rip off the taxpayers of the future to promise gibs now. Those future taxpayers are all grown up and recognise that they are being ripped off and that the economics are going to leave them holding the bag.
I also get more out of many investments than I put in, I'm still entitled to it.
Absolutely. I agree with you that it was a terrible idea and should never have been done this way. It also was done this way, and government should not renege on promises if it can be helped.
Even the most principled small government activists came asking for their share like Ayn Rand. Some leftists tend to say that she was a hypocrite for this, but I disagree. You can believe that taxing your money is a bad idea and also accept that ultimately they did tax your money and want them to fulfill the promises they made.
You're entitled to those because you own the investment vehicle.
It can't be helped without cannibalizing the ~entire economy for Medicare and SS.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Of course, they’d make more if they could invest the cash in the market.
I find this hard to believe if it were generalized. Regardless of the financial vehicle people choose for their retirement, the actual amount of physical resources and labor to fulfill their demands doesn't really change. The material burden caused by 40% of society being unable to work isn't alleviated in any way if all of those people are nominal millionaires due to their portfolios' appreciation over time, prices for elder care, cruises in the Caribbean, the local retirement home's weekly Bingo event etc. would simply adjust upwards according to the actual amount of working age people being able to deliver these things.
Society can't collectively out-save demographic change. The stock market or government pension schemes are different ways to save money, but they're just saving nonetheless, not material solutions to the actual issue. Individually, investing is obviously still the way to go as long as there are enough suckers unaware of or not engaging with these better financial options, but that just elevates your relative standing, it's not a solution for society as a whole.
I guess the question is how much of more capital being invested (instead of being moved to the government) would have led to more automation thereby increasing productivity
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only if you automate an index fund & ignore it. Most active investors lose money over time.
That’s futures and options no?
Yeah that's more negative sum though people are very capable of chopping themselves to death without any leverage
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